On June 6, the Michigan House Elections Committee passed HB 4156, the bill to provide that Michigan join the National Popular Vote Plan.
On June 6, the Michigan House Elections Committee passed HB 4156, the bill to provide that Michigan join the National Popular Vote Plan.
MICH COMMIES AT WORK
NPV SCHEME-
1. NOT APPROVED BY USA GERRYMANDER CONGRESS 1-10-3
2 SUBVERTS 14-1 AMDT
ELECTION RESULTS OUTSIDE A STATE DETERMINE ELECTION RESULTS INSIDE THE STATE.
Changing it to a popular vote plan is a mistake. Why? I once heard a circuit court judge say, “Once you open the door. Don’t complain about what comes thorugh it”.
Michigan is a swing state. It would be foolish of them to throw away their electoral votes.
For once, everyone commenting is correct. NPV is clearly a step in the wrong direction.
Richard Winger supports this.
The Constitution forbids states to enter into compacts without congressional permission. Does anyone think that the NPV compact would get that permission?
Believe this would mean states responsible for a total of 220 electoral votes have signed on to the Interstate Compact if this is passed into law in Michigan. 50 electoral votes to go.
@Thomas Knapp, that’s not exactly true in that the supreme court has found that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states. Because the Compact only affects the internal affairs, in this case the way in which states award their own electoral votes, of the signatories this may not need congressional permission.
It’s unconstitutional.
@Joshua Fauver, the compact obviously doesn’t just affect the internal affairs of the compacting states. It decides the presidential election for ALL the states whether they’re among the compacting states or not.
The states could individually/severally choose to award their electoral votes on the basis of an aggregate “national popular vote” without congressional permission, of course. It’s the compact part that requires said permission.
It does not affect only internal matters. You unwisely allow your commander in chief to be elected, plus give him all sorts of other distractions from what should be his only duty. Sadly, so do we. The electors are charged with doing this in your country. Their election is by no means affecting only the internal affairs of any one state, or even any group of states. It clearly affects all states.
Knapp beat me to it. But if even someone who doesn’t understand that limiting immigration and trade is the more genuinely conservative stance understands that this is unconstitutional, I’m fairly sure your Supreme Court will too, should it come to that. Of course, you still have quite a way to go before we find out whether it will come to that, too.
AN INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR RIGGING THE ELECTION OF A USA PREZ —
MUCH MORE TO WORRY ABOUT THAN ANTS CROSSING A STATE LINE AT MIDNIGHT ON A SUMMER SOLSTICE DAY ???
HOWEVER- EVEN THE ANTS MAY BE KILLER ANTS — SWARMING AND KILLING EVERYTHING THEY GET TO.
SEE VARIOUS HOLLYWOOD MOVIES OF S. AMERICAN KILLER ANTS.
USA — VARIOUS SOUTHERN FIRE ANT SWARMS
States can decide how they award their own electoral votes, folks. If states choose to award them to the winner of the national popular vote, that’s the state’s prerogative, right? You’re all “states’ rights” enthusiasts, aren’t you? You think that the states should be able to determine how they conduct their own election and how they award their electoral votes, right?
Joshua Fauver sounds like a commie.
I’m not a states rights proponent. States are way too big, and charged with doing way too many things. As opposed to a federal government, yes, I’d place more power in state hands and less in federal, but the real issue is that most of it should be in the hands of families, neighborhoods, businesses, churches, and local communities where people know each other, know the laws they are supposed to follow, and know who to blame when problems occur.
The issue is the compact, as Thomas pointed out.
Meanwhile, AZ is apparently bigoted against your own Southern states. We’ve already established in other discussions that he’s bigoted against Russians, and possibly Finns. How many other ethnic, national, regional, racial etc groups?
To be fair, we’re talking about the same guy who thinks the USA is a monarchy, the biggest difference between Hitler and Trump is that Hitler went to jail, the biggest mistake he (AZ) ever made was a typo, and possibly that he thinks he is God, if the theory that AZ is meant to signify the Alpha and the Omega is correct.
I don’t see how the compact becomes a problem as it only affects the internal affairs of the compacting states. No other state’s internal affairs are impacted. They’re still free to run their elections and award their electoral votes however they see fit. And, as I noted, the courts have found that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states.
Every State’s internal affairs are impacted by who is chosen president, unless the other states get a different president. The fact that you fail to see that only means a new visit to the optometrist is overdue.
@JV,
What other large democracies elect their chief executive by national popular vote?
Jim Riley,
Russia does. Even though I currently plan to vote to reelect our President next year (that could change, and I always voted against him before), I don’t think it makes any sense for us to do it this way either. However, our traditions are very different than yours.
While I think my proposals would greatly benefit either nation, or both, I think the United States is probably more culturally suited to at least consider such ideas as limiting national government to military defense only, and local government to defense against criminals only. We, on the other hand, have a long history of strong, autocratic rule, and of weak rulers who caused a variety of disasters to befall the people.
On the other hand, I think the ideas of cultural Marxism and population replacement are more readily accepted in the United States these days. While the Trump movement gives me hope for your country, along with others such as the dark enlightenment and the resurgence of nationalism, national conservatism, traditionalist conservatism, religious conservatism, paleoconservatism, national capitalism, social and cultural conservatism, etc., it may also be too late. I think, hope and pray that together with God’s help we can yet take those positive trends in your country, the great Orthodox revival in ours, the best of the Eurasianist ideas of Dugin et al, and the right wing nationalist and Euroskeptic movements throughout Europe, beat back the excesses of the Luciferian enlightenment, population replacement, and the globalist depopulation / prison planet agenda, and heroically save European Christian civilization for this century and beyond.
JR-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_French_presidential_election
TOP 2 RUNOFF IF NO FIRST MAJORITY
—-
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS VIA APPV – PENDING CONDORCET — RCV DONE RIGHT
France has a smaller population than Russia, so Max’s answer is better. There are others, depending on what you call large. The problem is all of them are way too large. The U.S., Russia, and France are several orders of magnitude larger than anything that should have an elected leader or poke its nose into anything beyond national defense.
Max may or may not have the right formula, but it’s way closer to being in the right ballpark than anything these big countries are doing now, much less whatever AZ is screaming out of his AZZ.
REAL PR WILL PUT MAJOR PRESSURE ON *LARGE* POP REGIMES TO DIVIDE —
LOCAL MINORITIES MAY BECOME LOCAL MAJORITIES AFTER DIVISIONS.
Wouldn’t that be a gerrymander? Besides, I like Max proposal better. If there’s any reason to think yours is better, you have not shown it. It’s not clear why your latest claim would be true either. The same pressure exists now. Division doesn’t happen for other reasons. But it should.
@Max,
So we have Russia, Brazil, and France.
Joshua Fauver has not explained why those countries should be models for the USA.
Honestly I don’t think we or they should be in this respect. I like your system better. To my knowledge, Joshua has left this particular discussion. I could be wrong, or perhaps he failed to notice you were addressing him, as you addressed him as JV rather than JF. Of course, perhaps he’s just been busy, and may return some time later.
As for why I don’t think the single large electorate format is optimal, in addition to everything I said above: the larger the size of the electorate, the more challenging the problems of accurate tabulation and reporting (whether due to unintended error, intentional deception, or various levels of both) and qualification of electors (making sure that people who are not actually qualified don’t vote, and those who are only vote once).
Supposing you have a challenge or recount, your present system would require just doing so in, at most, just the state(s) affected, as opposed to an entire national electorate in the nine digit range.
Furthermore, electors are supposed to represent the interest of states, not just individuals. The balance of the two is an important and underappreciated element of your system’s design. Many of those safeguards have since been unwisely done away with, making things worse. Getting rid of the remaining ones, including the electoral college (absent a more fundamental systemic change, such as my proposals) would only accelerate the pace at which things get worse.
I’m not an accelerationist; if things get worse faster, that buys less time to turn them around before a theoretical system collapse, which may either not happen or happen much later than the accelerationists assume likely. For example, France and the USA had rebolutions around the same time, but the results were less good in France, probably in no small part because France was less free to begin with. Likewise our 1917 revolutions produced something far less desirable, because the Czarist regime was also quite repressive. Those who think that if things are bad enough a revolution can only make them better are wrong. Things were quite bad here before 1917, and revolution only made them worse.
People who think that if things get sufficiently bad a revolution will occur in short order are also wrong; there was mass starvation, mass imprisonment, mass executions, and war on scales few people today can even imagine in the 1930s and 40s, and no revolution until half a century after those events (although there was in fact incremental change during that period which was in aggregate revolutionary). Overall, keeping bad changes at a slow pace is in general on average less bad than having them at a quick pace, although there are of course exceptions to this in some cases.
@Max,
Those who favor the National Popular Vote Scheme do not address issues such as different candidate lists or voting methods or even electorate.
If someone mentions equal protection, they argue it does not apply across state lines. To them it is a legal ninety, not some principle.
Some of those who recognize these problems expect that Congress will step in and pass a constitutional amendment. But that will increase the nationalization of the electoral process.
I don’t see anything good coming from or in any way tangential to such a scheme. It seems entirely a step in the wrong direction.