On April 23, the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 161, the National Popular Vote Plan Bill.
Comments
Rhode Island National Popular Vote Bill Advances — No Comments
Same request/invitation to “Susan” . . . please identify yourself for us, so we can know you better and factor that knowledge into evaluating your opinions.
John Anthony La Pietra
Elections Co-ordinator, GPMI
(writing here as an individual,
but giving the above info as
parallel self-identification;
see also my personal Webpages)
Mr. La Pietra –
Yours is the first response to this post. Why do you lead with a challenge for poor old Susan to produce her CV, as you seemingly have with dozens of other threads on this site? She quotes poll numbers. Does she need a friggin’ license issued by the Gren Party to do that?
And if you’re going to point us to your personal website in hopes of raising your own creds, you might post a picture that doesn’t make you look a convicted molester of sheep.
Quoting poll numbers is fine. Poll numbers are facts — presuming they’re reported accurately, and as far as I’ve ever seen “Susan” does that. Facts don’t depend on the reputation of the speaker to be reliable. (Though, as I’ve said on other threads, I don’t have as much innocent faith in the questions asked by polls that I did in my youth.)
But “Susan” has been in the habit of plunking down a couple of pages of opinions on every thread involving the issue of NPV. And opinion is different. Whether you believe an opinion or not has quite a lot to do with what you know or think (or think you know) about the person giving the opinion.
Hence my request/invitation to “Susan”. On about five threads so far, I think. All NPV-related. And I have tried to get it in early on NPV threads so that “Susan” (who seems to post on those threads in particular, if not exclusively) will see it.
Because I really do hope she answers. These threads are made for discussin’, and I’d much rather come here with hopes for future discussion than go away with only past “discussed”.
* * *
As for my Website . . . whoa, dude. Ad-hominem-hominem-hominem. And other surprised (and I hope mood-lightening) reactions.
That’s about the only digital photo I have that I can practically post there. I have a few from my graduation from law school last year — but unfortunately those are much bigger, and my personal Webspace is apparently limited to 5MB. This pic is small — partly because it was taken a few years ago, in B&W/grayscale, by an editorial-page editor to run with a guest column. (No, not about sheep, but perhaps about convictions — one or two of my opinions about how to drain the swamp Donald Rumsfeld was talking about just after 9-11. Well, you asked. Sort of. . . .)
At least it’s there, and the information is there — and here — to show something of where I’m coming from. (Which generally *doesn’t* include speaking *for* the Green Party, by the way. It didn’t this time, as you may see when you re-read the above.)
How about you, sir?
NO current approval of the NPV interstate compact scheme by the gerrymander Congress.
Even if approved, it blatantly subverts the 12th Amdt and the Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — permitting voters OUTSIDE of a State to determine election results INSIDE a State === a de facto subversion of the Constitution.
Par for the course of EVIL New Age folks wanting a quick fix to all stuff.
The Supremes await to smash the NPV scheme flat.
We all know NPV is unconstitutional, but it remains to be seen whether or not the Judicial system will make a compact to subvert the Constitution itself. While the Constitution is imperically clear, legislatures and courts have a way to muddy any clear statement. That’s what you get when you give one profession a monopoly over a branch of government.
It is important to note that neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid 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 make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The congressional district allocation of electoral votes that is currently used by Maine and Nebraska is not in the U.S. Constitution. No state used that system in 1789.
States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Sometimes statements just take one’s breath away.
Take Richard G.’s, for instance. “We all know NPV is unconstitutional.” Well, as mvmvy subsequently points out…quite accurately…what the Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .†Those are the actual words written into the USC. Richard G. evidently has another version of the Constitution he prefers. Perhaps he can quote from it to support his absurd assertion.
Demo Rep makes the comical claim that the NPV initiative would subvert the USC because it would give residents of one state the determine the results of an election INSIDE (his emphasis) another state. Perhaps the US President is secretly awarded other titles we don’t know about? Like Assistant Secretary of State in Missouri? Governor or Montana?
What on earth is Dem Rep thinking about?
He expects the USSC to “smash” the NPV compact “flat.” I truly relish the opportunity to hear how conservative “strict constructionist” justices will tell us we should just disregard what is written into the USSC, in about the clearest, most unambiguous language possible. Circus music would be appropriate accompaniment to the reading of such an opinion.
I would add the following observations to mymvy’s excellent points:
At the Constitutional Convention there was anything but unanimity about what the Executive ought to be
and how the holder of the office should be elected. In fact, some thought there ought to be more than one individuals who would share the power of the Executive, so as to prevent corruption. Many thought the Congress ought to appoint the Executive. Some wanted a monarchy! Some thought individual voters were not well-informed enough to be allowed to make the decision. So…if you’re looking for the USSC to overturn NPV, should it be approved, on some “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, you’re going to be very disappointed. On the issues of Executive powers and the election of the Executive, the FF’s were all over the map.
Also, it’s worth noting that the Executive branch that the Convention envisioned was far, far weaker than the Executive branch that has evolved since. Read the words in the USC – they gave the Exec the power to make treaties, but they reserved for Congress the power to ratify them. The Exec can appoint judges, but Congress needs to approve them as well. Same with ambassadors and other high level appointments in the Executive. They didn’t even allow the Executive to appoint generals without their consent even though the Exec is Commander in Chief of “the Army and Navy.” In fact, just about the only thing the Executive could do without Congressional approval was grant pardons.
So, it’s very hard indeed to make the case that the FF’s agonized too much about giving small states a disproportionate say in the election of an Executive when they clearly didn’t see the Executive as branch as powerful as the national legislature. In fact, the decision to use the Congressional allotment of Sen.s and Reps to populate the EC was made very late in the Constitutional Convention, almost as an afterthought by a group of men who were anxious to get out of a miserably hot Philadelphia after a long summer at work, to return to their harvests.
But what the heck…maybe we should just accept RichardG’s view. Clearly – we all know the NPV is unconstitutional. Yeah. That’s it. I mean, after all – look at all the evidence he’s submitted in support of his position.
Same request/invitation to “Susan” . . . please identify yourself for us, so we can know you better and factor that knowledge into evaluating your opinions.
John Anthony La Pietra
Elections Co-ordinator, GPMI
(writing here as an individual,
but giving the above info as
parallel self-identification;
see also my personal Webpages)
Mr. La Pietra –
Yours is the first response to this post. Why do you lead with a challenge for poor old Susan to produce her CV, as you seemingly have with dozens of other threads on this site? She quotes poll numbers. Does she need a friggin’ license issued by the Gren Party to do that?
And if you’re going to point us to your personal website in hopes of raising your own creds, you might post a picture that doesn’t make you look a convicted molester of sheep.
Quoting poll numbers is fine. Poll numbers are facts — presuming they’re reported accurately, and as far as I’ve ever seen “Susan” does that. Facts don’t depend on the reputation of the speaker to be reliable. (Though, as I’ve said on other threads, I don’t have as much innocent faith in the questions asked by polls that I did in my youth.)
But “Susan” has been in the habit of plunking down a couple of pages of opinions on every thread involving the issue of NPV. And opinion is different. Whether you believe an opinion or not has quite a lot to do with what you know or think (or think you know) about the person giving the opinion.
Hence my request/invitation to “Susan”. On about five threads so far, I think. All NPV-related. And I have tried to get it in early on NPV threads so that “Susan” (who seems to post on those threads in particular, if not exclusively) will see it.
Because I really do hope she answers. These threads are made for discussin’, and I’d much rather come here with hopes for future discussion than go away with only past “discussed”.
* * *
As for my Website . . . whoa, dude. Ad-hominem-hominem-hominem. And other surprised (and I hope mood-lightening) reactions.
That’s about the only digital photo I have that I can practically post there. I have a few from my graduation from law school last year — but unfortunately those are much bigger, and my personal Webspace is apparently limited to 5MB. This pic is small — partly because it was taken a few years ago, in B&W/grayscale, by an editorial-page editor to run with a guest column. (No, not about sheep, but perhaps about convictions — one or two of my opinions about how to drain the swamp Donald Rumsfeld was talking about just after 9-11. Well, you asked. Sort of. . . .)
At least it’s there, and the information is there — and here — to show something of where I’m coming from. (Which generally *doesn’t* include speaking *for* the Green Party, by the way. It didn’t this time, as you may see when you re-read the above.)
How about you, sir?
NO current approval of the NPV interstate compact scheme by the gerrymander Congress.
Even if approved, it blatantly subverts the 12th Amdt and the Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — permitting voters OUTSIDE of a State to determine election results INSIDE a State === a de facto subversion of the Constitution.
Par for the course of EVIL New Age folks wanting a quick fix to all stuff.
The Supremes await to smash the NPV scheme flat.
We all know NPV is unconstitutional, but it remains to be seen whether or not the Judicial system will make a compact to subvert the Constitution itself. While the Constitution is imperically clear, legislatures and courts have a way to muddy any clear statement. That’s what you get when you give one profession a monopoly over a branch of government.
It is important to note that neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid 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 make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The congressional district allocation of electoral votes that is currently used by Maine and Nebraska is not in the U.S. Constitution. No state used that system in 1789.
States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Sometimes statements just take one’s breath away.
Take Richard G.’s, for instance. “We all know NPV is unconstitutional.” Well, as mvmvy subsequently points out…quite accurately…what the Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .†Those are the actual words written into the USC. Richard G. evidently has another version of the Constitution he prefers. Perhaps he can quote from it to support his absurd assertion.
Demo Rep makes the comical claim that the NPV initiative would subvert the USC because it would give residents of one state the determine the results of an election INSIDE (his emphasis) another state. Perhaps the US President is secretly awarded other titles we don’t know about? Like Assistant Secretary of State in Missouri? Governor or Montana?
What on earth is Dem Rep thinking about?
He expects the USSC to “smash” the NPV compact “flat.” I truly relish the opportunity to hear how conservative “strict constructionist” justices will tell us we should just disregard what is written into the USSC, in about the clearest, most unambiguous language possible. Circus music would be appropriate accompaniment to the reading of such an opinion.
I would add the following observations to mymvy’s excellent points:
At the Constitutional Convention there was anything but unanimity about what the Executive ought to be
and how the holder of the office should be elected. In fact, some thought there ought to be more than one individuals who would share the power of the Executive, so as to prevent corruption. Many thought the Congress ought to appoint the Executive. Some wanted a monarchy! Some thought individual voters were not well-informed enough to be allowed to make the decision. So…if you’re looking for the USSC to overturn NPV, should it be approved, on some “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, you’re going to be very disappointed. On the issues of Executive powers and the election of the Executive, the FF’s were all over the map.
Also, it’s worth noting that the Executive branch that the Convention envisioned was far, far weaker than the Executive branch that has evolved since. Read the words in the USC – they gave the Exec the power to make treaties, but they reserved for Congress the power to ratify them. The Exec can appoint judges, but Congress needs to approve them as well. Same with ambassadors and other high level appointments in the Executive. They didn’t even allow the Executive to appoint generals without their consent even though the Exec is Commander in Chief of “the Army and Navy.” In fact, just about the only thing the Executive could do without Congressional approval was grant pardons.
So, it’s very hard indeed to make the case that the FF’s agonized too much about giving small states a disproportionate say in the election of an Executive when they clearly didn’t see the Executive as branch as powerful as the national legislature. In fact, the decision to use the Congressional allotment of Sen.s and Reps to populate the EC was made very late in the Constitutional Convention, almost as an afterthought by a group of men who were anxious to get out of a miserably hot Philadelphia after a long summer at work, to return to their harvests.
But what the heck…maybe we should just accept RichardG’s view. Clearly – we all know the NPV is unconstitutional. Yeah. That’s it. I mean, after all – look at all the evidence he’s submitted in support of his position.