https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&fbclid=IwAR3UNoWlPCCj0t2ytpq4aW6Pjg8sjEbg5DBRhf78q5QlKNF3hGUlqOM2RjQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY&fbclid=IwAR3UNoWlPCCj0t2ytpq4aW6Pjg8sjEbg5DBRhf78q5QlKNF3hGUlqOM2RjQ)https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation)
So the basic idea is this:
There is a set of legislation out there that goes like this:
If your state signs up to the compact, they are agreeing that for any national election, that state will cast ALL their electoral votes for whatever candidate wins the national popular election, regardless of how the members of that state have voted.
This compact is null and void up until such time that enough states have passed the compact that would result in those states controlling 270 electoral votes.
So this would, effectively, use the electoral college itself to give us a straight up national election for POTUS and VP.
It is kind of brilliant, really. Not sure it would survive the current SC unfortunately. But I love the idea of using the EC to destroy the EC.
So far, enough states have signed this into law to get to 196 electoral votes (16 states). They need another 74. It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states possessing 75 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in 2 states possessing 27 more electoral votes (GA, MO).
If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.
I'm sure you understand full well that amending the Constitution to get rid of EC is impossible, so this is not an intellectually honest thing to say. I also don't see how this scheme is subverting the Constitution.
It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.
The problem is, don't electors ultimately have free choice to do whatever they want?
All it takes is one bad faith actor and the system could crash.
I've mentioned this compact in every EC debate we have had here the last year or so. It solves the EC problem without a constitutional amendment. The argument that it subverts the constitution is absurd; the constitution specifically allows the state legislators to decide how to select electors.
Faithless electors are no bigger a problem in the compact than they are now.
OK, I may have misunderstood part of this proposal. If it wouldn't actually get rid of electors, but merely require a state to appoint electors who would vote for whoever won the nationwide popular vote, then it wouldn't subvert the Constitution. Grumbler is correct--the Constitution allows the states to choose electors however they wish.
By the letter of the rules, it is ok...but I would oppose it on a local level as I think it is a bad idea.
But...there is also nothing that holds the compact in force, so as political winds shift at the local level states can withdraw from it. So it could create conditions where if affects one presidential election, but then not the next one...depending on which party holds sway in which states, and are then unhappy with how the presidential election turned out. I think it just makes the overall system far more wonky.
It would be better in the long run to amend/reform the EC in such a way that makes it more effective (and opinions are different on this, of course, as I am personally skeptical of a simple direct nation-wide popular election of the executive)...but as said that would be extremely politically difficult.
My biggest concern is the possibility of states reneging on the compact. If we have a situation where one state switching back to the old EC method would flip the election, then what's to stop it from coming up with some bullshit reason to vote the old way despite being part of the compact? Normally this kind of chicanery would be kept in check by the fact that the president selected on this way would lack the legitimacy, but I think we've seen in the last couple of years that a certain political party would always opt to grab some power when presented with an opportunity, and just hope that everything else would work itself out.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2019, 01:51:05 PM
My biggest concern is the possibility of states reneging on the compact. If we have a situation where one state switching back to the old EC method would flip the election, then what's to stop it from coming up with some bullshit reason to vote the old way despite being part of the compact? Normally this kind of chicanery would be kept in check by the fact that the president selected on this way would lack the legitimacy, but I think we've seen in the last couple of years that a certain political party would always opt to grab some power when presented with an opportunity, and just hope that everything else would work itself out.
This would only be an issue if (1) every state not part of the compact was won by the candidate who lost the popular vote, and (2) the flipping of one state could change the outcome. The odds of both of those being true seems quite low, since a lot of states would likely join the compact in order to avoid looking petty. Plus, it would require passing a new state law between the time the election and the time the electoral college electors vote in mid-December. That's a pretty short timeline, and it is likely the minority party in that state could procedurally hold up passage for long enough.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 23, 2019, 01:12:41 PM
By the letter of the rules, it is ok...but I would oppose it on a local level as I think it is a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea?
QuoteBut...there is also nothing that holds the compact in force, so as political winds shift at the local level states can withdraw from it. So it could create conditions where if affects one presidential election, but then not the next one...depending on which party holds sway in which states, and are then unhappy with how the presidential election turned out. I think it just makes the overall system far more wonky.
It would be better in the long run to amend/reform the EC in such a way that makes it more effective (and opinions are different on this, of course, as I am personally skeptical of a simple direct nation-wide popular election of the executive)...but as said that would be extremely politically difficult.
If enough states withdraw, then we are back to the current system, so nothing is lost. Nothing wonky about that.
Amending the EC would require a constitutional amendment, which you could do even if the compact were in force, so nothing is lost by implementing the compact and then amending the constitution. Better is the enemy of good enough, in this case.
Opposition to the direct election of the chief executive is another matter, but that's not really related to this topic. The current system allows Devin Nunes to bleat about "the Democrats trying to sabotage the democratic election of the president" when he knows goddamn well that this president was not democratically elected. One of the direct benefits of the compact is at least making such bleating non-hypocritical.
Wasn't the EC set up because the other 12 colonies feared Virginia would otherwise have too much power in the fledgling United States? It was kinda the California of it's day.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 23, 2019, 02:59:25 PM
Wasn't the EC set up because the other 12 colonies feared Virginia would otherwise have too much power in the fledgling United States? It was kinda the California of it's day.
There were several reasons for the EC. First, because the Founding Fathers wanted the president to be elected by the eminent men of their states, thus keeping the Trumps of the day out of power. Second, because the smaller states fear domination by the larger states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina together had more than half the total population of the US in the 1790 census). Third, because it allowed the slave states to count 3/5 of their slave population in the apportionment of the electoral votes.
Makes sense. Here in Iceland the rural and smaller places outside of Reykjavík have a huge say in national politics as the price for participating in the system. Their political impact is considerable compared to the capital.
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.
How does this subvert the Constitution? That is 100% Constitutional. The Constitution leaves it up to the state.
It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. :(
They could spend more time on congressional races.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2019, 03:52:32 PM
It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. :(
It'd be more interesting no?
District by District vote counts come in and you have two running totals going up against each other. You can never be absolutely sure one has won unless they somehow get more than 50% of the elctorate. Which won't happen even by the end of the night.
Quote from: Tyr on November 23, 2019, 04:47:42 PM
It'd be more interesting no?
District by District vote counts come in and you have two running totals going up against each other. You can never be absolutely sure one has won unless they somehow get more than 50% of the elctorate. Which won't happen even by the end of the night.
It would be as interesting as watching two numbers on a screen change.
Vs. Watching nothing?
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2019, 02:44:48 PM
Why is it a bad idea?
In general, I already don't like rules that force electors to vote a certain way. If it were up to me, I'd make them a more public part of the electoral process at the state level, instead of the invisible unknowns that they currently are.
Quote
Opposition to the direct election of the chief executive is another matter, but that's not really related to this topic. The current system allows Devin Nunes to bleat about "the Democrats trying to sabotage the democratic election of the president" when he knows goddamn well that this president was not democratically elected. One of the direct benefits of the compact is at least making such bleating non-hypocritical.
I couldn't care less about Nunes bleats. :P
But I also know that my views on the topic are a bit archaic. I also think the amendment that made for the direct election of Senators was a bad idea (I think, ideally, that it would make people think more about, and make much more relevant, their own state-level politics)...though I recognize there were some very good reasons for it.
And while we think the EC is a subversion of the principles of democracy, we let pass the fact that term limits are also a pretty terrible subversion of democratic principles.
On that note, Tom Steyer (remember him?) is running ads rebranding himself as the term limit candidate.
Are youse guys who browse youtube a lot getting inundated with campaign ads? I'm wondering if it's just an Iowa thing right now.
I've seen a bunch of his ads on local TV channels back here in WA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2019, 07:36:35 PM
On that note, Tom Steyer (remember him?) is running ads rebranding himself as the term limit candidate.
Are youse guys who browse youtube a lot getting inundated with campaign ads? I'm wondering if it's just an Iowa thing right now.
Yes I have seen his ads from time to time. Who is he again? I am really puzzled.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2019, 03:52:32 PM
It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. :(
They can tell us about the Congressional districts.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 23, 2019, 02:51:59 AM
It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.
Absolutely not one letter or word of the Constitution needs to be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it demand we do the elections the way we do now, it is just as Constitutional as any other way the electors vote including this proposal.
Maybe people should actually read the Constitution before they start lecturing us about subverting it? Maybe if one understood the Constitution they wouldn't end up taking dishonest positions.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2019, 08:08:37 PM
Yes I have seen his ads from time to time. Who is he again? I am really puzzled.
He's the billionaire hedge fund guy I think.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2019, 08:11:37 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 23, 2019, 02:51:59 AM
It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.
Absolutely not one letter or word of the Constitution needs to be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it demand we do the elections the way we do now, it is just as Constitutional as any other way the electors vote including this proposal.
Maybe people should actually read the Constitution before they start lecturing us about subverting it? Maybe if one understood the Constitution they wouldn't end up taking dishonest positions.
If someone doesn't understand something, is it really possible for them to have a dishonest (as opposed to just being mistaken) position on it? :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 23, 2019, 08:21:05 PM
If someone doesn't understand something, is it really possible for them to have a dishonest (as opposed to just being mistaken) position on it? :P
Well um....ok got me there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.
How does this subvert the Constitution? That is 100% Constitutional. The Constitution leaves it up to the state.
See reply #6. I thought the proposal would do away with individual electors; apparently it does not.
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2019, 09:14:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.
How does this subvert the Constitution? That is 100% Constitutional. The Constitution leaves it up to the state.
See reply #6. I thought the proposal would do away with individual electors; apparently it does not.
Ah. Sorry. :blush:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 23, 2019, 07:10:59 PM
In general, I already don't like rules that force electors to vote a certain way. If it were up to me, I'd make them a more public part of the electoral process at the state level, instead of the invisible unknowns that they currently are.
Laws can't force an elector to vote a certain way. They can only establish a procedure in which electors are chosen in such a way that they will almost certainly vote in a certain way.
QuoteBut I also know that my views on the topic are a bit archaic. I also think the amendment that made for the direct election of Senators was a bad idea (I think, ideally, that it would make people think more about, and make much more relevant, their own state-level politics)...though I recognize there were some very good reasons for it.
I actually happen to agree. Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states, not the interests of the hoi-polloi. Given the transient nature of state residency, however, that is a ship that has sailed.
QuoteAnd while we think the EC is a subversion of the principles of democracy, we let pass the fact that term limits are also a pretty terrible subversion of democratic principles.
As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc. It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2019, 11:11:43 PM
As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc. It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."
Of all the folks on Languish, I would not have expected you to roll out something similar to a slippery slope fallacy. :P
I think an age threshold is reasonable. Felons? I am fine with the restriction while they're incarcerated...afterwords, very likely no. If someone serves their time, that should be it.
But term limits specifically is a complete non-sequitur for problems it is argued it should fix.
The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election. :hmm: Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?
Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2019, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2019, 11:11:43 PM
As is the fact that children and felons cannot vote, etc. It is possible to be too devoted to the mythology of "democratic principles."
Of all the folks on Languish, I would not have expected you to roll out something similar to a slippery slope fallacy. :P
I think an age threshold is reasonable. Felons? I am fine with the restriction while they're incarcerated...afterwords, very likely no. If someone serves their time, that should be it.
But term limits specifically is a complete non-sequitur for problems it is argued it should fix.
My comment wasn't a "slippery slope" fallacy at all; in fact, it wasn't even an argument. I was just pointing out that "because democratic principles" is not an argument, either.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 24, 2019, 11:10:35 AM
The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election. :hmm: Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?
Just because you don't like the implications for the GOP doesn't convert this simple plan into some thing "ramshackle" or "overnerdified" at all. Californians who see their electors voting for the popular vote winner won't be nonplussed, any more than the Republicans in the state were when all of the California electors voted for the candidate they didn't vote for; people will know that that's just how the system works. The reliably red states will be scrambling to sign up when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, but some will likely sign after the thing goes into effect.
QuoteAnother issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.
The Interstate Compact changes none of the relationships between the states and the federal government, so this argument is a complete
non sequitur. Even tiny empires like Switzerland have internal political diversity.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 24, 2019, 11:10:35 AM
Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.
Decentralization would not at all be impacted by this idea. The powers and responsibilities of each state would remain the same.
One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.
I also think if this passed, then there would be a lot less resistance to an actual amendment to reform the process.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 24, 2019, 11:10:35 AM
The problem with this compact is that it's a ramshackle overnerdified solution that will run into big trouble as soon as for instance the Californian electors vote for the other candidate than the majority of the state voters did in a presidential election. :hmm: Has any reliably red state formally signed up to this compact?
Another issue is that the strength of the United States is precisely that it is a collection of states instead of them being just administrative units in a heavily centralized, top-down state. This decentralization is probably a major reason for why the US has managed to stick together as a cohesive continent-spanning empire given the big internal political diversity of the place.
I mean I guess if California decided the guy who got fewer votes should win an election, sure. We'll see.
And it is not a nerdication...I mean the current system is already a nerdification basically trying, less than perfectly, to achieve the same result: supporting the people's selection. It is exactly the strength of the collectivity of the States making a decision on who gets to be President. If a big enough number of states decide to do this and actually follow through on it well on what grounds would the other states have to tell them they are wrong? It is entirely an individual state's prerogative on how they select their electors.
So your second paragraph strikes me as not an issue but an explanation as to why the states can make this decision if they so choose. There is nothing the Feds or another State could do about it. Besides complain.
As for which states have signed on well: currently Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and DC. So yeah currently not much Red in there. But, as you see in Berkut's post, a few redder states are coming close.
So we shall see.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2019, 05:21:24 PM
One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.
Yes and Thank God. That was definitely an unintended consequence.
I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...
However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 25, 2019, 11:49:20 AM
I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...
However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.
I'm sure someone who doesn't like an election outcome would float out something...likely the "equal protection" clause (arguing that a state having electors vote against the popular will of the state violates equal protection under the law), as that tends to be the favorite catch-all...to try and strike down the "compact".
But electors have been voting against the popular will of the state for hundreds of years. I mean they did in a few cases in the last election.
Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2019, 11:56:43 AM
But electors have been voting against the popular will of the state for hundreds of years. I mean they did in a few cases in the last election.
I don't believe there are any cases where they did so as an entire block.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 25, 2019, 11:49:20 AM
I don't see how it could possibly be unconstitutional...
However, it seems as though you would need a national election process to make it "fair" (whatever that means). Right now you have 50 states setting voter qualifications and voting procedures. A state with comparably lax voting qualifications (such as felon voting and possibly even 17 year olds voting), fewer voter verification procedures, easier registration, more polling places, longer poll hours (or days), more polling places, more mail in votes, etc. will be disproportionately represented in the popular vote.
Does any state currently allow 17 year olds to vote?
I have zero problem with states being rewarded for expanding the franchise.
Quote from: Maximus on November 25, 2019, 04:17:25 PM
I have zero problem with states being rewarded for expanding the franchise.
What's the reasonable limit for you?
Quote from: Habbaku on November 25, 2019, 04:19:43 PM
What's the reasonable limit for you?
In general, some combination of the capability for informed decision making and a vested interest. In practice, citizen+18 is acceptable. Resident+16 would be as well.
Quote from: dps on November 25, 2019, 01:02:36 PM
Does any state currently allow 17 year olds to vote?
I guess he is just saying that some states may cheat by not closely watching who is voting. I don't really get how this would advantage anybody though. Some dead people in Chicago voting might help you win a close Illinois contest but surely it means much less in a nationwide deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2019, 05:21:24 PM
One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.
I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2019, 05:21:24 PM
One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.
I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.
Do you know what places have a lot of swing voters? Places with a lot of voters. Places like California, Texas, New York.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2019, 05:21:24 PM
One thing that would definitely change is battleground states would lose all their importance.
I'm not so sure - they're still where there's lots of swing voters. So I think your strategy would either be try to win them or run up an enormous tally with your base. The latter might work for Democrats (given their record since 92). I'm not sure the GOP base is big enough to win a a majority without reaching out to some swing voters.
That is not how battleground states work. Neither party is really regional, except maybe in an urban/suburban/rural divide so concentrating in Texas is not really going to "run up the score" for Republicans. There are shit loads of Democratic and swing voters here, it was just that in the current system it is worthless to bother with them. In this system suddenly appealing to Texas swing voters means something. That concept of base versus swing voters doesn't really make any sense in a state-by-state strategy. There are swing voters everywhere.
So it is not true that battleground states necessarily have significantly more swing voters than anywhere else. They were battleground states because they had roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters, not because being an independent swing voter was particularly prevalent in those states compared to other states.
Yeah, I don't see how you get that battleground states have disproportionately more swing voters.
#pileon
Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2019, 04:45:20 PM
That is not how battleground states work. Neither party is really regional, except maybe in an urban/suburban/rural divide so concentrating in Texas is not really going to "run up the score" for Republicans. There are shit loads of Democratic and swing voters here, it was just that in the current system it is worthless to bother with them. In this system suddenly appealing to Texas swing voters means something. That concept of base versus swing voters doesn't really make any sense in a state-by-state strategy. There are swing voters everywhere.
Yes they are everywhere and that could help on a national level. But you will still want to put your resources where you'll get most bang for your buck. You might increase your turnout in "enemy" territory because there's a reason for, say urban Republicans in NYC or rural Democrats in Wyoming to vote.
But ultimately you're still going to want to maximise your return - it's not going to suddenly become a floating national campaign. And the reason those battleground states are like that in the mid-west, maybe Florida etc is surely to do with their demographics? So in terms of campaign return you'd focus on them while trying to maximise your base (which would be the real difference from now). Those states would shift - especially as people are geographically polarising.
QuoteSo it is not true that battleground states necessarily have significantly more swing voters than anywhere else. They were battleground states because they had roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters, not because being an independent swing voter was particularly prevalent in those states compared to other states.
Okay. If that's the case wouldn't the best strategy to energise the base? Make sure your 40-45% turnout rather than focusing on the 10-15% in the middle?
I wonder if one of the unintended consequences might be a massive hike in the "entry cost" for running for POTUS.
If the focus changes from states to appealing nationwide as a whole, that makes the nation-wide media gatekeepers even more important, and they'll be able to jack up their rates astronomically. And the big-population cities will get all of the focus as well. And that could make campaign finance game even more insidious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2019, 05:05:20 PM
And the reason those battleground states are like that in the mid-west, maybe Florida etc is surely to do with their demographics?
Well yeah. It's because they have a rough balance of red and blue voters.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2019, 11:53:44 AM
I'm sure someone who doesn't like an election outcome would float out something...likely the "equal protection" clause (arguing that a state having electors vote against the popular will of the state violates equal protection under the law), as that tends to be the favorite catch-all...to try and strike down the "compact".
That happened in 2016 in Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington. Can you link us to the lawsuit(s)?
Quote from: grumbler on November 25, 2019, 06:37:48 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2019, 11:53:44 AM
I'm sure someone who doesn't like an election outcome would float out something...likely the "equal protection" clause (arguing that a state having electors vote against the popular will of the state violates equal protection under the law), as that tends to be the favorite catch-all...to try and strike down the "compact".
That happened in 2016 in Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington. Can you link us to the lawsuit(s)?
Nope. I wasn't talking about individual faithless electors, but speculating about how someone who doesn't like a result caused by the compact might try to combat in court the compact's entire premise (that being a state compelling all of their electors to vote for the nation-wide popular vote winner).
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2019, 06:53:15 PM
Nope. I wasn't talking about individual faithless electors, but speculating about how someone who doesn't like a result caused by the compact might try to combat in court the compact's entire premise (that being a state compelling all of their electors to vote for the nation-wide popular vote winner).
Sure. Frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time. No court is going to rule the Constitution unconstitutional, however, and the prospect of frivolous lawsuits should not determine policy.
Oh, and the Maine elector who voted for Trump even though Clinton won the statewide vote was not a faithless elector. He was voting as in accordance with Maine law and the U.S. constitution.
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2019, 03:21:07 PM
There were several reasons for the EC. First, because the Founding Fathers wanted the president to be elected by the eminent men of their states, thus keeping the Trumps of the day out of power. Second, because the smaller states fear domination by the larger states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina together had more than half the total population of the US in the 1790 census). Third, because it allowed the slave states to count 3/5 of their slave population in the apportionment of the electoral votes.
Going by that reasoning, the first is a failure, the second is still relevant, and the third is no longer relevant. Not exactly a glowing endorsement for keeping the system.
This proposal seems to me to be a band-aid on the festering wound that is the EC in American politics. It may work for a bit, but ultimately it isn't the solution that is needed. The Founders and Framers were fallible and left open the ability to change, adapt, and update things for a reason.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 25, 2019, 09:14:58 PM
Going by that reasoning, the first is a failure, the second is still relevant, and the third is no longer relevant. Not exactly a glowing endorsement for keeping the system.
This proposal seems to me to be a band-aid on the festering wound that is the EC in American politics. It may work for a bit, but ultimately it isn't the solution that is needed. The Founders and Framers were fallible and left open the ability to change, adapt, and update things for a reason.
An amazing grasp of the obvious. The logic of not at least applying the band-aid escapes me, though.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 25, 2019, 09:14:58 PM
The Founders and Framers were fallible and left open the ability to change, adapt, and update things for a reason.
Did they really? I imagine that all constitutions technically have some mechanism for amendments, so it's a question of degree, but my impression is that the US Constitution is way too inflexible to being amended. This is one of the reasons why our Supreme Court is so powerful: it became the de facto amendment mechanism for our Constitution, because the actual amendment mechanism is so inadequate for the task.
When it comes to EC in particular, the amendment mechanism is especially flawed, because you need to permission of small states to make a change that would take away the disproportional political power of small states. Sometimes systems just cannot be changed within a system, and that is especially true for inflexible systems.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 25, 2019, 05:28:02 PM
I wonder if one of the unintended consequences might be a massive hike in the "entry cost" for running for POTUS.
If the focus changes from states to appealing nationwide as a whole, that makes the nation-wide media gatekeepers even more important, and they'll be able to jack up their rates astronomically. And the big-population cities will get all of the focus as well. And that could make campaign finance game even more insidious.
Maybe. But in the day of the internet you don't need massive TV ad campaigns and big political rallies and the like to get your message out. You can reach everybody in the nation at any time for very little.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 25, 2019, 09:14:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 23, 2019, 03:21:07 PM
There were several reasons for the EC. First, because the Founding Fathers wanted the president to be elected by the eminent men of their states, thus keeping the Trumps of the day out of power. Second, because the smaller states fear domination by the larger states (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina together had more than half the total population of the US in the 1790 census). Third, because it allowed the slave states to count 3/5 of their slave population in the apportionment of the electoral votes.
Going by that reasoning, the first is a failure, the second is still relevant, and the third is no longer relevant. Not exactly a glowing endorsement for keeping the system.
This proposal seems to me to be a band-aid on the festering wound that is the EC in American politics. It may work for a bit, but ultimately it isn't the solution that is needed. The Founders and Framers were fallible and left open the ability to change, adapt, and update things for a reason.
Well I disagree. This strikes me as exactly the sort of solution that is needed. The Constitution clearly leaves the EC up to the states.