I would like to see a proportional plan in each state. As a resident of CT I definitely do not support the national popular vote. This should be considered unconstitutional because it is contrary to the intent of the constitution. The proportional plan would actually be the most favorable to third party and independent candidates.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would disadvantage certain states in relation to other states. For example, Montana and Wyoming each have one congressman and three electoral votes. However, Montana has almost three times as many people as Wyoming. The proportional approach would disadvantage fast-growing states because electoral votes are only redistributed among the states after each federal census. The proportional approach would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not ensure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
There are no restrictions in the U.S. Constitution on the subject matter of interstate compacts, other than the implicit limitation that a compact’s subject matter must be among the powers that the states are permitted to exercise. As just mentioned, the states possess the exclusive power to choose the manner of awarding their electoral votes.
National Popular Vote is not aware of any case in which the courts have invalidated an interstate compact.19 Given the recent tendencies of the courts to accord even greater deference to states’ rights and even freer use of interstate compacts by the states, it is unlikely that the courts would invalidate the National Popular Vote compact. The National Popular Vote compact is an example of states’ rights in action.
There is no argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers in organizing the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (in particular, the fact that only three states used the winner-take-all rule) make it clear that the Founding Fathers never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
Mvymvy is right. There is nothing in the Constitution and nothing in James Madison’s account of the Constitutional Convention to indicate that the Founding Fathers had any other “intent” about the effects of the Electoral College system than to vest in state legislatures the responsibility to elect the Executive.
Nothing about the NPV plan contravenes that “intent.”
You can, however, find clear evidence in Madison’s account that there were some Founding Fathers who felt that the Congress should appoint the Executive, others who felt that the state legislatures needed to elect the president rather than the populace because there would not be enough time to tally popular votes, and still others who felt that individual voters would vote only for favorite sons and that members of the various legislatures would know more about worth candidates from other states. And as a group they generally believed that slaves shouldn’t vote, women shouldn’t vote, and that in order to vote one must own property.
So how much deference do we in the 21st century need to give to FF’s intent when discussing how we should conduct our elections…now?
Despite some of the outlandish claims you may read here and elsewhere, there is nothing unconstitutional about the NPV plan. The Constitution gives to the state legislatures the exclusive right to determine how they allocate their EC votes. The NPV does nothing to contravene that. And the Constitution permits states to enter into interstate compacts. That is what the NPV is.
Depending no what you mean by “proportional plan” of allocation of EC votes by the states, I might agree with the effect of such a system. However, I don’t believe there is a practical way to get there without an amendment to the Constitution. And we know that isn’t going to happen, any more than one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will vote to give up their full veto power.
Baronscarpia. We will see. First off, the Winner-take-All method was created by individual states acting on their own behalf and not of them do it. Unlike Mvmvy=”Susan” comment, the EC has nothing to do with the Winner-take-All system. To believe that somehow NPV will rid us of the WTA system is a great fallacy and shows great ability of those who are destroying our form of government to juxtapose their words as to make it appear that the WTA system is enshrined in the EC. It is not!!! In fact, NPV is the grandest Winner-Take-All scheme that has ever been preposed.
Whether or not NPV is protected or is unconstitutional will be decided sooner or later by the Supreme Court. My argument is that it is. However, that doesn’t keep political entities from controlling the courts to get there way. The Constitution states however, in Artical IV, Section 10. “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” NPV is an alliance or confederation of many of the states, to thwart and give undue power to themselves in deciding the presidential fate of the nation. The Alliance removes the Constitutionally protect right to fair representation in selecting the President given to all other states outside the Alliance.
While you may dislike the EC process, it does give fair representation, whereas, NPV will not. Having the mob override your vote is not fair representation. NPV does this. If I vote in MY STATE, and 85% in MY STATE, vote the same way, under NPV if my state is part of it, and the other candidate gets the national majority, MY STATES EC votes will go to the opposing candidate rather than the peoples vote. This doesn’t provide fair representation at all. My state should send the EC votes by which MY STATES VOTERS have selected. In otherwords, NPV, even if it is constitutional, rips the people of their representation for electing the President.
Winner take all is regressive. This is a step backward.
Citizen1 –
See Richard G.’s post for a fine example of the sort of inaccuracies and misrepresentations I told you that you would see.
For instance, the operative clause of Article IV Section 10 (Clause 3) which permits interstate compacts, says:
“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.”
The Supreme Court, when it has had cases dealing with this clause, has consistently ruled that states have a right to form interstate compacts not specifically proscribed by this clause, and in some instances has even ruled that Congressional approval is not required. For instance, in Virginia v. Tennessee, the court held that compacts require Congressional approval only when it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” The NPV clearly does not threaten the supremacy of the US.
Richard’s statement that the NPV is designed to give “undue power to themselves” but he conveniently ignores the reality that the compact is an agreement among the states entering into it to allocate their EC votes based on a nationwide popular vote…in all 50 states and the DC. So it does not deny citizens of other states fair representation as he claims. In fact, it effectively re-enfranchises Republican voters in predictably blue states like HI, VT, MA, NY..etc and Democrat citizens in predictably red states like TX, OK, UT, AK, etc… And if he is so concerned about any states having fair representation in the national election, one might wonder why he continues to support our current system, where the outcomes in only 12-15 contested states each election cycle determine the winner of the election. THE NPV counts all the votes of all voters in all states. State legislatures which do not sign on to the agreement are still free to allocate their EC votes in whatever manner they so choose. But understand – the votes of ALL of the citizens of ALL states will be counted by the NPV members. To infer otherwise borders on lying.
He also suggests that MMVVYY has claimed that the “winner take all system” was created with the Electoral College system that was indeed created by the Constitution. MMVVYY did no such thing. The winner take all method (it’s not a “system” in any case) used by individual states to allocate electoral votes evolved over time, with each of the 48 states which employ it having made their own individual decisions to do so over time. And it’s worth noting yet again…those decisions to do so were made as an expression of the right explicitly given to them by the USC. And so would be signing on with the NPV compact. It’s up to the states to determine how to allocate their EC votes. That’s all the NPV does.
Richard disparages the NPV as the grandest of “WTA systems.” He’s right, after a fashion. The NPV is designed to elect the candidates who get the most popular votes. My my…what an anarchical concept, huh?
Richard’s last paragraph is sadly comical. Read it carefully. What he’s saying is, effectively, that he’s opposed to “mob” rule UNLESS of course he’s part of the mob. Then he’s perfectly happy with it.
So you might want to ask Richard and other people who oppose the NPV, and support the current system which has allowed candidates to take office with fewer popular votes than their opponents (or by outright fraud as in 1876)…you might want to ask them this question:
“Why do you so fear democracy?”
For instance:
John Francis Lee –
The NPV awards electoral votes to the Pres./VP candidates receiving he most popular votes nationwide. How is that “regressive?” Why do you so fear democracy?
BaronScarpia: Well, your good at twisting the Constitutional phrases around and twisting the other sides point of view. Good for you!!
Actually, I support more Republic systems because true democracies tend to rob the public treasury and destroy their resources. Republics tend to balance the need of the “Mob” against the need to preserve resources.
Also, clause 3, like clause 1, must be taken in the context of the Section. Whereas, the indicates that there are limits to the power of individuals states in regard to their ability to stifle the rights of other individual states. I argue, the NPV stifles (causes harm or removes) protected rights of other individual states by allowing the existance of an electoral super state.
While there are some things that I can agree with you on, you and your ilk have developed an attitude of destroying any conversation that opposes your view by diminishing or demeaning others who oppose you. That probably is the most irritating of all.
I personally see that the EC provides for moderation, stability, and balance. Whereas, I see a lack of balancing or stability will develop from NPV. States rights vs Federal mandates, resource use vs population need, property owners vs tenants of land, etc. NPV would be a dramatic change, possibly having repercussions beyond our current view.
I don’t see why the states couldn’t return to the Congressional district method. It would help solve most of the problems that NPV tries to correct. It is more related to population than the WTA method (since you didn’t like the word “system”) but continues the protections of state soveriegnty which is partly destoyed by NPV.
It continues to allow the resource managers voice (states with large resources but small populations) to be balanced by the need of the masses (states with large populations and diminishing resources). To me its all about balance.
You’re right. I do fear strict or true democracies because of the lack balance and checks that republics provide. But however, the question must be asked likewise, why do you fear representative government and state soveriegnties?
Sorry – NPV or any other interstate agreement / compact can NOT be used to subvert the Equal Protection Clause — i.e. the votes for Prez/VP INSIDE each sovereign State (or any other part of the Constitution — Bill of Rights, etc.)
National — after a zillion recounts and Supremes cases
AC 50,000,001
GW 50,000,000
——
State of Change
AC 1
GW 10,000,000
——
AC Anti-Christ – with its great power to deceive lots of brain dead voters.
GW George Washington offspring
***
How many States manage to survive with elected Guvs/Lt Guvs, County executives, Mayors, etc ???
NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for executive / judicial officers.
Would AC or GW get elected with Approval Voting ???
The NPV scheme would be a tremendous incentive for fraud. Pay enough winos, druggies and illegal aliens to vote multiple times in a few urban areas and you can steal the whole country in a close election. Under the current system most of the states with large SMSA’s are solidly D, so the incentive to steal votes is small. And the others would each have to be stolen separately.
Imagine the turnout in Cook County using NPV!
#6 The Supreme Court did anything but assert that the authority of a State over its presidential elections is “supreme” and “plenary” in decisions such as Anderson v. Celebrezze or Oregon v. Mitchell
How would mvymvy know that “National Popular Vote is not aware of any case in which the courts have invalidated an interstate compact”? Is he, she, or it an official spokesman, spokeswomen, or spokesit for an organization.
#7 In the States that conducted popular election for presidential electors in 1789 there is absolutely no evidence that voter qualification for the presidential election was any different than for elections to the State legislature (which of course is the basis for the election to Congress).
Citizen1 –
See Richard’s response to my post for more examples of the kind of obfuscation you’ll get in opposition to the NPV.
I’m criticized for “twisting†the words of the Constitution, despite the fact that I am quoting the document verbatim. Yet Richard feels free to put the 12th amendment into his own personally preferred “context†position (that it was designed to prevent an “electoral superstate,â€). In fact the 12th amendment was crafted to correct a glaring defect in the method of choosing the President through the EC which was revealed by the Adams-Jefferson election of 1800. I believe this was covered in 8th grade history, so I won’t spend any more time on that again here.
Richard dredges up the tired argument that the EC is a reflection of the Founding Father’s desire to protect “states rights†or “state sovereignty.†Of course many of the FF’s were anything but Federalists, and opposed a strong federal government. And, it is true that the matter which almost killed the Constitutional Convention was how states would be represented in the Legislature. The Connecticut Compromise, which allocated two Senators to all states and proportional representation in the House, settled the matter. However it is a leap of illogic not supported by any facts in evidence here that the Electoral College was another expression of the Compromise aimed at preserving “states rights.†Citations in James Madison’s notes to the Con Con indicate that there were many reasons for adopting the EC, but few speakers argued for it because they feared their small states would lose power.
In fact, most of the debate which resulted in adopting the EC centered on adopting it as an alternative to the Legislature (Congress) itself APPOINTING the Executive.
How’d you like THAT system? In his support for a republican form of government, even Richard isn’t willing to go that far to strictly adhere to the FF’s “intent,†is he?
There were even some FF’s at the Con Con who thought we should have a monarchy. Many felt we needed an Executive branch led by three or more co-equal executives. For the closest you can get to a first hand account of the FF thinking which led to the creation of the Executive branch and the method of electing the Executive, I suggest you read Madison’s notes. For a quicker glimpse read the 68th Federalist Paper by Hamilton (“Publiusâ€):
See if you can find any stirring rhetoric about preserving “state sovereignty†in his vigorous support of the EC. And I won’t be there to “twist†his words, or Madison’s notes, as Richard claims I and my “ilk†are apt to do.
As for the wild claims that the NPV will result in massive upheaval – “States rights vs Federal mandates, resource use vs population need, property owners vs tenants of land, etc.†you must remember that the effect of the NPV is to award the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The most popular votes.
Repeat after me…
The most popular votes.
How can giving to the people the power to select the president by majority vote have such “dark†consequences? And if it would, one must wonder whether democracy is indeed a failed experiment. I have no such worries. Richard evidently does.
Richard – I do not fear a republican form of government. I believe that with all its defects the Congress as it is constituted works better than any other legislative body in the world. I also believe in the checks and balances of our government as they evolved over 200 plus years (thank you John Marshall), although I am certain the FF’s would be greatly disappointed…to a man…at how much power has been ceded to the Executive over the years, and would be appalled at the evolution of agency powers and laws. But what has all that to do with the election of a single Executive? And do you really think that a bunch of county party chairmen and other party aparatchniks meeting to cast their EC votes like finger puppets really constitutes “republican government?†Please. Be serious. Why stop with the President of the US? How about 50 mini EC’s where we “elect†electors to represent us at a gubernatorial electoral college to elect our governors, too?
I also do not “fear†state sovereignty, and as I’ve stated above it is a fallacy that the EC was designed to further strengthen “states rights.†In fact I would remind you that unchecked states rights were PRECISELY the cause of the myriad problems which almost scuttled the new union, and brought the FF’s to Philadelphia in 1787.
icr – In 2004 under the NPV the Dems would have had to buy 3,012,177 “winos” and “illegal aliens” to surmount Bush’s popular vote advantage nationwide. However, if the Democrats had made only 178,7765 such “purchases” in Ohio, Kerry would have been president under our current EC system.
Citizen1 – if the Republicans hadn’t rigged the game in Ohio in 2004 and lost to a candidate who had gotten fewer popular votes, how spirited do you think their defense of the current EC would be now by people like Richard and Demo Rep and icr?
Oh…and Richard…I’m not an “ilk.†You may be confusing me with my father, who was an “Elk.â€
A survey of 797 Connecticut voters conducted April 19-20, 2008 showed 73%-27% support for a national popular vote for President.
For details, see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#CT_2008APR
JALP? Your serve…
It’s a good thing that it passed.
I would like to see a proportional plan in each state. As a resident of CT I definitely do not support the national popular vote. This should be considered unconstitutional because it is contrary to the intent of the constitution. The proportional plan would actually be the most favorable to third party and independent candidates.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would disadvantage certain states in relation to other states. For example, Montana and Wyoming each have one congressman and three electoral votes. However, Montana has almost three times as many people as Wyoming. The proportional approach would disadvantage fast-growing states because electoral votes are only redistributed among the states after each federal census. The proportional approach would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not ensure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
To read more about this issue, see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php#m21_2
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
There are no restrictions in the U.S. Constitution on the subject matter of interstate compacts, other than the implicit limitation that a compact’s subject matter must be among the powers that the states are permitted to exercise. As just mentioned, the states possess the exclusive power to choose the manner of awarding their electoral votes.
National Popular Vote is not aware of any case in which the courts have invalidated an interstate compact.19 Given the recent tendencies of the courts to accord even greater deference to states’ rights and even freer use of interstate compacts by the states, it is unlikely that the courts would invalidate the National Popular Vote compact. The National Popular Vote compact is an example of states’ rights in action.
There is no argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers in organizing the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (in particular, the fact that only three states used the winner-take-all rule) make it clear that the Founding Fathers never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
To read more about this issue, see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m1.php
Citizen1
Mvymvy is right. There is nothing in the Constitution and nothing in James Madison’s account of the Constitutional Convention to indicate that the Founding Fathers had any other “intent” about the effects of the Electoral College system than to vest in state legislatures the responsibility to elect the Executive.
Nothing about the NPV plan contravenes that “intent.”
You can, however, find clear evidence in Madison’s account that there were some Founding Fathers who felt that the Congress should appoint the Executive, others who felt that the state legislatures needed to elect the president rather than the populace because there would not be enough time to tally popular votes, and still others who felt that individual voters would vote only for favorite sons and that members of the various legislatures would know more about worth candidates from other states. And as a group they generally believed that slaves shouldn’t vote, women shouldn’t vote, and that in order to vote one must own property.
So how much deference do we in the 21st century need to give to FF’s intent when discussing how we should conduct our elections…now?
Despite some of the outlandish claims you may read here and elsewhere, there is nothing unconstitutional about the NPV plan. The Constitution gives to the state legislatures the exclusive right to determine how they allocate their EC votes. The NPV does nothing to contravene that. And the Constitution permits states to enter into interstate compacts. That is what the NPV is.
Depending no what you mean by “proportional plan” of allocation of EC votes by the states, I might agree with the effect of such a system. However, I don’t believe there is a practical way to get there without an amendment to the Constitution. And we know that isn’t going to happen, any more than one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will vote to give up their full veto power.
Baronscarpia. We will see. First off, the Winner-take-All method was created by individual states acting on their own behalf and not of them do it. Unlike Mvmvy=”Susan” comment, the EC has nothing to do with the Winner-take-All system. To believe that somehow NPV will rid us of the WTA system is a great fallacy and shows great ability of those who are destroying our form of government to juxtapose their words as to make it appear that the WTA system is enshrined in the EC. It is not!!! In fact, NPV is the grandest Winner-Take-All scheme that has ever been preposed.
Whether or not NPV is protected or is unconstitutional will be decided sooner or later by the Supreme Court. My argument is that it is. However, that doesn’t keep political entities from controlling the courts to get there way. The Constitution states however, in Artical IV, Section 10. “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” NPV is an alliance or confederation of many of the states, to thwart and give undue power to themselves in deciding the presidential fate of the nation. The Alliance removes the Constitutionally protect right to fair representation in selecting the President given to all other states outside the Alliance.
While you may dislike the EC process, it does give fair representation, whereas, NPV will not. Having the mob override your vote is not fair representation. NPV does this. If I vote in MY STATE, and 85% in MY STATE, vote the same way, under NPV if my state is part of it, and the other candidate gets the national majority, MY STATES EC votes will go to the opposing candidate rather than the peoples vote. This doesn’t provide fair representation at all. My state should send the EC votes by which MY STATES VOTERS have selected. In otherwords, NPV, even if it is constitutional, rips the people of their representation for electing the President.
Winner take all is regressive. This is a step backward.
Citizen1 –
See Richard G.’s post for a fine example of the sort of inaccuracies and misrepresentations I told you that you would see.
For instance, the operative clause of Article IV Section 10 (Clause 3) which permits interstate compacts, says:
“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.”
The Supreme Court, when it has had cases dealing with this clause, has consistently ruled that states have a right to form interstate compacts not specifically proscribed by this clause, and in some instances has even ruled that Congressional approval is not required. For instance, in Virginia v. Tennessee, the court held that compacts require Congressional approval only when it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” The NPV clearly does not threaten the supremacy of the US.
Richard’s statement that the NPV is designed to give “undue power to themselves” but he conveniently ignores the reality that the compact is an agreement among the states entering into it to allocate their EC votes based on a nationwide popular vote…in all 50 states and the DC. So it does not deny citizens of other states fair representation as he claims. In fact, it effectively re-enfranchises Republican voters in predictably blue states like HI, VT, MA, NY..etc and Democrat citizens in predictably red states like TX, OK, UT, AK, etc… And if he is so concerned about any states having fair representation in the national election, one might wonder why he continues to support our current system, where the outcomes in only 12-15 contested states each election cycle determine the winner of the election. THE NPV counts all the votes of all voters in all states. State legislatures which do not sign on to the agreement are still free to allocate their EC votes in whatever manner they so choose. But understand – the votes of ALL of the citizens of ALL states will be counted by the NPV members. To infer otherwise borders on lying.
He also suggests that MMVVYY has claimed that the “winner take all system” was created with the Electoral College system that was indeed created by the Constitution. MMVVYY did no such thing. The winner take all method (it’s not a “system” in any case) used by individual states to allocate electoral votes evolved over time, with each of the 48 states which employ it having made their own individual decisions to do so over time. And it’s worth noting yet again…those decisions to do so were made as an expression of the right explicitly given to them by the USC. And so would be signing on with the NPV compact. It’s up to the states to determine how to allocate their EC votes. That’s all the NPV does.
Richard disparages the NPV as the grandest of “WTA systems.” He’s right, after a fashion. The NPV is designed to elect the candidates who get the most popular votes. My my…what an anarchical concept, huh?
Richard’s last paragraph is sadly comical. Read it carefully. What he’s saying is, effectively, that he’s opposed to “mob” rule UNLESS of course he’s part of the mob. Then he’s perfectly happy with it.
So you might want to ask Richard and other people who oppose the NPV, and support the current system which has allowed candidates to take office with fewer popular votes than their opponents (or by outright fraud as in 1876)…you might want to ask them this question:
“Why do you so fear democracy?”
For instance:
John Francis Lee –
The NPV awards electoral votes to the Pres./VP candidates receiving he most popular votes nationwide. How is that “regressive?” Why do you so fear democracy?
BaronScarpia: Well, your good at twisting the Constitutional phrases around and twisting the other sides point of view. Good for you!!
Actually, I support more Republic systems because true democracies tend to rob the public treasury and destroy their resources. Republics tend to balance the need of the “Mob” against the need to preserve resources.
Also, clause 3, like clause 1, must be taken in the context of the Section. Whereas, the indicates that there are limits to the power of individuals states in regard to their ability to stifle the rights of other individual states. I argue, the NPV stifles (causes harm or removes) protected rights of other individual states by allowing the existance of an electoral super state.
While there are some things that I can agree with you on, you and your ilk have developed an attitude of destroying any conversation that opposes your view by diminishing or demeaning others who oppose you. That probably is the most irritating of all.
I personally see that the EC provides for moderation, stability, and balance. Whereas, I see a lack of balancing or stability will develop from NPV. States rights vs Federal mandates, resource use vs population need, property owners vs tenants of land, etc. NPV would be a dramatic change, possibly having repercussions beyond our current view.
I don’t see why the states couldn’t return to the Congressional district method. It would help solve most of the problems that NPV tries to correct. It is more related to population than the WTA method (since you didn’t like the word “system”) but continues the protections of state soveriegnty which is partly destoyed by NPV.
It continues to allow the resource managers voice (states with large resources but small populations) to be balanced by the need of the masses (states with large populations and diminishing resources). To me its all about balance.
You’re right. I do fear strict or true democracies because of the lack balance and checks that republics provide. But however, the question must be asked likewise, why do you fear representative government and state soveriegnties?
Sorry – NPV or any other interstate agreement / compact can NOT be used to subvert the Equal Protection Clause — i.e. the votes for Prez/VP INSIDE each sovereign State (or any other part of the Constitution — Bill of Rights, etc.)
National — after a zillion recounts and Supremes cases
AC 50,000,001
GW 50,000,000
——
State of Change
AC 1
GW 10,000,000
——
AC Anti-Christ – with its great power to deceive lots of brain dead voters.
GW George Washington offspring
***
How many States manage to survive with elected Guvs/Lt Guvs, County executives, Mayors, etc ???
NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for executive / judicial officers.
Would AC or GW get elected with Approval Voting ???
The NPV scheme would be a tremendous incentive for fraud. Pay enough winos, druggies and illegal aliens to vote multiple times in a few urban areas and you can steal the whole country in a close election. Under the current system most of the states with large SMSA’s are solidly D, so the incentive to steal votes is small. And the others would each have to be stolen separately.
Imagine the turnout in Cook County using NPV!
#6 The Supreme Court did anything but assert that the authority of a State over its presidential elections is “supreme” and “plenary” in decisions such as Anderson v. Celebrezze or Oregon v. Mitchell
How would mvymvy know that “National Popular Vote is not aware of any case in which the courts have invalidated an interstate compact”? Is he, she, or it an official spokesman, spokeswomen, or spokesit for an organization.
#7 In the States that conducted popular election for presidential electors in 1789 there is absolutely no evidence that voter qualification for the presidential election was any different than for elections to the State legislature (which of course is the basis for the election to Congress).
Citizen1 –
See Richard’s response to my post for more examples of the kind of obfuscation you’ll get in opposition to the NPV.
I’m criticized for “twisting†the words of the Constitution, despite the fact that I am quoting the document verbatim. Yet Richard feels free to put the 12th amendment into his own personally preferred “context†position (that it was designed to prevent an “electoral superstate,â€). In fact the 12th amendment was crafted to correct a glaring defect in the method of choosing the President through the EC which was revealed by the Adams-Jefferson election of 1800. I believe this was covered in 8th grade history, so I won’t spend any more time on that again here.
Richard dredges up the tired argument that the EC is a reflection of the Founding Father’s desire to protect “states rights†or “state sovereignty.†Of course many of the FF’s were anything but Federalists, and opposed a strong federal government. And, it is true that the matter which almost killed the Constitutional Convention was how states would be represented in the Legislature. The Connecticut Compromise, which allocated two Senators to all states and proportional representation in the House, settled the matter. However it is a leap of illogic not supported by any facts in evidence here that the Electoral College was another expression of the Compromise aimed at preserving “states rights.†Citations in James Madison’s notes to the Con Con indicate that there were many reasons for adopting the EC, but few speakers argued for it because they feared their small states would lose power.
In fact, most of the debate which resulted in adopting the EC centered on adopting it as an alternative to the Legislature (Congress) itself APPOINTING the Executive.
How’d you like THAT system? In his support for a republican form of government, even Richard isn’t willing to go that far to strictly adhere to the FF’s “intent,†is he?
There were even some FF’s at the Con Con who thought we should have a monarchy. Many felt we needed an Executive branch led by three or more co-equal executives. For the closest you can get to a first hand account of the FF thinking which led to the creation of the Executive branch and the method of electing the Executive, I suggest you read Madison’s notes. For a quicker glimpse read the 68th Federalist Paper by Hamilton (“Publiusâ€):
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
See if you can find any stirring rhetoric about preserving “state sovereignty†in his vigorous support of the EC. And I won’t be there to “twist†his words, or Madison’s notes, as Richard claims I and my “ilk†are apt to do.
As for the wild claims that the NPV will result in massive upheaval – “States rights vs Federal mandates, resource use vs population need, property owners vs tenants of land, etc.†you must remember that the effect of the NPV is to award the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The most popular votes.
Repeat after me…
The most popular votes.
How can giving to the people the power to select the president by majority vote have such “dark†consequences? And if it would, one must wonder whether democracy is indeed a failed experiment. I have no such worries. Richard evidently does.
Richard – I do not fear a republican form of government. I believe that with all its defects the Congress as it is constituted works better than any other legislative body in the world. I also believe in the checks and balances of our government as they evolved over 200 plus years (thank you John Marshall), although I am certain the FF’s would be greatly disappointed…to a man…at how much power has been ceded to the Executive over the years, and would be appalled at the evolution of agency powers and laws. But what has all that to do with the election of a single Executive? And do you really think that a bunch of county party chairmen and other party aparatchniks meeting to cast their EC votes like finger puppets really constitutes “republican government?†Please. Be serious. Why stop with the President of the US? How about 50 mini EC’s where we “elect†electors to represent us at a gubernatorial electoral college to elect our governors, too?
I also do not “fear†state sovereignty, and as I’ve stated above it is a fallacy that the EC was designed to further strengthen “states rights.†In fact I would remind you that unchecked states rights were PRECISELY the cause of the myriad problems which almost scuttled the new union, and brought the FF’s to Philadelphia in 1787.
icr – In 2004 under the NPV the Dems would have had to buy 3,012,177 “winos” and “illegal aliens” to surmount Bush’s popular vote advantage nationwide. However, if the Democrats had made only 178,7765 such “purchases” in Ohio, Kerry would have been president under our current EC system.
Citizen1 – if the Republicans hadn’t rigged the game in Ohio in 2004 and lost to a candidate who had gotten fewer popular votes, how spirited do you think their defense of the current EC would be now by people like Richard and Demo Rep and icr?
Oh…and Richard…I’m not an “ilk.†You may be confusing me with my father, who was an “Elk.â€