View Poll Results: How should presidents be elected

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Popular vote

    34 48.57%
  • Electoral college

    36 51.43%
Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 245

Thread: The electoral college

  1. #171
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,192

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
    I think what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would do is worse. If we ever had a serious third party challenger, a candidate could win with around 30-40% of the vote. Imagine if we had a national scenario like Maine had in 2010. Despite 62% of the people voting for someone ranging from slightly liberal to very liberal a tea party conservative was elected governor. It's better to have it go to congress decide it than to have a President elected that a large majority of people don't want.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  2. #172
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    Then you probably shouldn't be living in states where there is a large city that votes Democrat.
    Problem is, that is most cities. Those that do not, will eventually get there.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  3. #173
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    I think what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would do is worse. If we ever had a serious third party challenger, a candidate could win with around 30-40% of the vote. Imagine if we had a national scenario like Maine had in 2010. Despite 62% of the people voting for someone ranging from slightly liberal to very liberal a tea party conservative was elected governor. It's better to have it go to congress decide it than to have a President elected that a large majority of people don't want.
    If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

    With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

    Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

    If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

    Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

    Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

    Remember . . . with the current system, it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes.

    In a contingent election, the U.S. House of Representatives would choose the President (with each state having one vote). In the House, each state is entitled to cast one vote for President (with equally divided states being unable to cast a vote). In the Senate, each Senator is entitled to cast one vote for Vice President. Approval of Congress now is at less than 10%.

  4. #174
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,885

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And just how does the Electoral College accomplish this goal?
    Well heymarket lets look how long it has been successfully in place for starters....... America's election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200
    years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America's presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents electoral chaos by creating definitive electoral outcomes, promotes coalition building among different regions of the country, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable
    rule. It further protects the freedom of individuals in small and sparsely populated states from the tyranny of the majority in a national election for President. I don't care if you are left, right, up , down or in-between, that should be a concern to all.



    Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government. A republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks by enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

    The author(s) of the Constitution (Madison often called the father of the Constitution) had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they wanted to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unrestrained majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny. Madison stated it this way:

    [In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.


    Know the failures of democracies from history, the Founders were still strong advocates for self-government, and they often spoke of the need to allow the will of the people to operate in the new government that they were crafting. "Not withstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy," Virginia delegate George Mason declared ( after experiencing the tyrannical democracy from Mother England), "the genius of the people must be consulted." James Madison agreed. The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical while allowing all states no matter how small a voice.
    Last edited by vesper; 08-08-13 at 08:04 PM.

  5. #175
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,927

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Well heymarket lets look how long it has been successfully in place for starters.......
    I would imagine that the four men who finished first in the vote of the people and their supporters may not be so generous in your characterization of success.

    It further protects the freedom of individuals in small and sparsely populated states from the tyranny of the majority in a national election for President.
    How is the winner of an election suddenly the "tyranny of the majority"? It seems you prefer the tyranny of the minority.

    Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy.
    Nor would the removal of the electoral college suddenly make us a direct democracy. Your point is irrelevant.

    The author(s) of the Constitution (Madison often called the father of the Constitution) had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they wanted to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unrestrained majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.
    The Constitution was the work of 55 men. I would love to read about the findings of nations which had PURE DEMOCRACIES before 1787. Please do list them and their weaknesses.

    Know the failures of democracies from history
    But you have provided us with no specific examples - only vague personal pontifications of others.

    The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical while allowing all states no matter how small a voice.
    My compliments on your abilities with a phrase. It is very well stated. Unfortunately for you, the EC has nothing at all to do with reason as it is based purely on mathematics which are a whole different ball of wax.
    Last edited by haymarket; 08-08-13 at 08:36 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #176
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government. A republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks by enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

    The author(s) of the Constitution (Madison often called the father of the Constitution) had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they wanted to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unrestrained majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny. Madison stated it this way:

    [In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

    Know the failures of democracies from history, the Founders were still strong advocates for self-government, and they often spoke of the need to allow the will of the people to operate in the new government that they were crafting. "Not withstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy," Virginia delegate George Mason declared ( after experiencing the tyrannical democracy from Mother England), "the genius of the people must be consulted." James Madison agreed. The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical while allowing all states no matter how small a voice.
    National Popular Vote is NOT direct or pure democracy.
    Direct or pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

    The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) 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.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    In the nation's first presidential election in 1789, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the methods of awarding electors rejected by the Founders (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

  7. #177
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,192

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
    Not really true. In 2008 a majority of Obama's 69 million votes came from just 85 counties, all big cities except for a few Maryland suburbs. Most of those areas he didn't even campaign in. A smart politician would try to run up the vote in those 85 counties, all of which have similar demographics, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may in the other 3060 counties.
    With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

    Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.
    Just because there is no sentiment for it doesn't mean its not a good idea.

    If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.
    10% of elections ending up without a majority seems like a problem to me.
    Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

    Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.
    I don't care what the majority of Americans view as a problem. I see it as a problem. At least the electoral system provides a mechanism for stopping the candidate who recieves a mere plurality from automatically becoming president, although with our two party system it has never happened. If a third party candidate were strong enough to win some states, he could force it to congress. With the Compact.

    Remember . . . with the current system, it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes.
    Theoretically possible and a common argument against the electoral college, but not something that would ever actually happen. If we're going for theoretical systems that could never actually happen, under the Popular Vote Compact a candidate could when in election with just 1% of the votes in a divided enough election.

    In a contingent election, the U.S. House of Representatives would choose the President (with each state having one vote). In the House, each state is entitled to cast one vote for President (with equally divided states being unable to cast a vote). In the Senate, each Senator is entitled to cast one vote for Vice President. Approval of Congress now is at less than 10%.
    Approval of congress is irrelevant. I believe their picking of the president would be better than a candidate in a three or four way race squeaking by with ~30% of the vote.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  8. #178
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,885

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    National Popular Vote is NOT direct or pure democracy.
    Direct or pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

    National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

    The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) 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.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It 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 method.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    In the nation's first presidential election in 1789, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the methods of awarding electors rejected by the Founders (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
    The National Popular Vote Plan is an initiative to effectively abolish the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. A number of state legislatures have already adopted an agreement in which participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. The agreement would go into effect when states with a total of more than the 270 electoral votes (the number required to win a presidential election) have adopted the agreement. Is this not an agreement.... an interstate compact that requires the approval of Congress? What this entire plan is a way of attempting to avoid having to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. Because constitutionally, that is what would be required.

    Why are you hell bent on fixing something that isn't broken? And why are you willing to use such a tactic that avoids the Constitutional remedy?

    My conclusion is this, you are a Constitution Shredder. You are no different than those who judge shop for activist judges to overturn the vote of a people within any state over certain issues. Like what the 9th Circus Court of Appeals did to the voters in California over Gay Marriage. Or like what the left did by judge shopping to get abortion to the Supreme Court at a time when left political appointees were in the majority to force the law onto the people when the majority were against it then and today the majority are still against it. You are among the group that have no appreciation for the Constitution and therefore always looking for backdoor ways to change it.

  9. #179
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    The National Popular Vote Plan is an initiative to effectively abolish the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. A number of state legislatures have already adopted an agreement in which participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. The agreement would go into effect when states with a total of more than the 270 electoral votes (the number required to win a presidential election) have adopted the agreement. Is this not an agreement.... an interstate compact that requires the approval of Congress? What this entire plan is a way of attempting to avoid having to pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. Because constitutionally, that is what would be required.

    Why are you hell bent on fixing something that isn't broken? And why are you willing to use such a tactic that avoids the Constitutional remedy?

    My conclusion is this, you are a Constitution Shredder. You are no different than those who judge shop for activist judges to overturn the vote of a people within any state over certain issues. Like what the 9th Circus Court of Appeals did to the voters in California over Gay Marriage. Or like what the left did by judge shopping to get abortion to the Supreme Court at a time when left political appointees were in the majority to force the law onto the people when the majority were against it then and today the majority are still against it. You are among the group that have no appreciation for the Constitution and therefore always looking for backdoor ways to change it.
    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

    Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution.

    The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

    National Popular Vote does not abolish the Electoral College.

    When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the Electoral College votes-- enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. A majority of the Electoral College would elect the President.

    The U.S. Constitution says "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."

    The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

    Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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 abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

    Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

    The U.S. Constitution provides:

    "No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…."

    Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

    "Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

    "The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

    Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

    "Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition 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 state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

    "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."

    In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

    "The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

    The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

    In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:

    "the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

    The Court also noted that the compact did not

    "authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

  10. #180
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,385

    The electoral college

    What is so great about having candidates visit your state? They snarl traffic and they bomb your airwaves with broadcast spam. Obama was more interested in the turnout in Philly than is any other big city.

    Advertising is truly the dumbest of reasons for getting rid of the Electoral College, which btw, IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •