• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debunkers VS Abolishing The Electoral College

Perotista said:
I didn't watch the video, but being we are a union of the several states, I always liked the idea of each state having a say. We're not one mass huge direct democracy as popular vote only would imply.

Now I am open to the idea of the popular vote if a majority of Americans voted for one particular candidate. In other words the winning candidate must receive 50% plus one vote to win. In 2016 the majority of Americans voted against Clinton and a majority against Trump, 52% and 54%. That means the will of the majority of Americans was not to elect either one.

The compact doesn't bother me as those who became a member of it are pretty much solid Democratic Party states. No red states, no swing states. Also any state can withdraw or revoke the compact law if the state legislature switches parties. It's not a permanent thing. There is always the possibility that some time in the future the compact might backfire on the Democrats who so feverishly passed it. A Republican could win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. Just because 2000 and 2016 went against the Democrats doesn't mean it will always be that way. Especially in an era of the ever shrinking two major parties and the rise of independents from 30% in 2006 to 40% or above of the total electorate today.
Click to expand...

bold mine

Your statement about this "backfiring" on Democrats assumes as true that we could only support a national popular vote so long as it accomplishes getting our preferred candidate into power. What you completely neglect is the possibility that we support such a policy based on principle, and that if a Republican were to win a popular vote then that principle would still be served.
 
Renae said:

I love these guys, absolutely shred the National Popular vote compact movement
Click to expand...


Actually, I think the movement is great. Let all of the blue states pass this and one day it will bite them in the ass. It really has no upside for them at all. Red states aren't going to join in and neither are purple states. Another liberal idea that they really didn't think through. And, it is many of the blue states who have become Democratic Socialists so, if they ever form their own party or run as Independents, this will really haunt them.
 
Cardinal said:
I didn't say I didn't watch it; I said I watched the first five seconds. And it was insufferable. I can't imagine the kind of masochism that leads a human being to watch the first five or tend seconds and conclude, "Yes, I shall continue to watch this. This will be good for me."

If their argument is so good, perhaps you can summarize it?
Click to expand...

LOL. I think that's the point. You already knew ahead of time that it was not going to turn out well for you.
 
Redress said:
Anyone have a summary of the arguments used in the video? I am not wasting my time on some radon youtube video without some evidence it isn't idiotic.
Click to expand...

There really is no good argument for the movement in the first place. It's only possibility is in backfiring unless red or purple states join the compact, which they aren't.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
1. There is nothing "improper" about states passing the NPVIC.

2. The anti-choice movement has been destroying settled law (Roe) by a thousand small cuts, STATE BY STATE, so it seems a bit hypocritical to whine about states doing what the Constitution says they can do re elections, namely handling the election laws as they see fit.

3. Left by itself, the EC had been a benign adjustment to rural versus urban all along but now, with Citizens United and gerrymandering, it forms a troika of nullification that is designed to favor the oligarchy. You want to preserve the EC?
You get to pick the EC, CU or gerrymandering. You get to pick ONE but you can't have all three.
You want to nullify the popular vote election after election? Fine, then the EC WILL BE NULLIFIED in return.
You do NOT get to have THREE "cheats".
Of course we could always reverse CU and gerrymandering and then the EC would go back to being what it was meant to be.

4. I believe that the total is now at 179 or something close to it. That is less than a hundred votes from the magic 270.
My bet is we will not get to 270 before the 2020 election but we probably will before 2024.
Of course, miracles CAN happen.

5. Nice try...most of the people whining about the NPVIC DO want to get rid of the Senate elections. They want the 17A repealed, and they're pushing for a Constitutional Convention so that they can do just that.
Tweakers...

You have debunked NOTHING. 270 is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Only blue states join, making the compact pointless. Unless red or purple states join, there are only two outcomes:

1. the Democrat would have won anyway

2. you've got to remember that Trump played by the rules of the election and didn't try to win any popular votes in states like California and New York. If the compact had been the law in 2016 (assuming the compact had 270 electoral votes) then Trump would have campaigned differently and went for votes in California and New York, knowing that he wouldn't win the popular vote in those states but could have won the popular vote nationwide, giving him an even more lopsided victory if the pact had been in place.
 
Redress said:
You really did not even bother to research your claim in any way, shape or form did you? Read Federalist 68: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68. Let me quote it for you:



Also, still waiting for you to show where in the constitution it does not allow the Popular Vote compact.

ANd with your failure to know what you are talking about there, probably should not tell others they do not understand the constitution...
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the poster, but post #33 seems to address your question about where in the Constitution. That seems to be the strongest argument against. As for the 12th Amendment and Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, I have no idea which has supremacy, if either.
 
Moderate Right said:
Only blue states join, making the compact pointless. Unless red or purple states join, there are only two outcomes:

1. the Democrat would have won anyway

2. you've got to remember that Trump played by the rules of the election and didn't try to win any popular votes in states like California and New York. If the compact had been the law in 2016 (assuming the compact had 270 electoral votes) then Trump would have campaigned differently and went for votes in California and New York, knowing that he wouldn't win those states electoral votes but could have won the popular vote nationwide, giving him an even more lopsided victory if the pact had been in place.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like you have every reason to support the pact.
 
Moderate Right said:
Only blue states join, making the compact pointless. Unless red or purple states join, there are only two outcomes:

1. the Democrat would have won anyway

2. you've got to remember that Trump played by the rules of the election and didn't try to win any popular votes in states like California and New York. If the compact had been the law in 2016 (assuming the compact had 270 electoral votes) then Trump would have campaigned differently and went for votes in California and New York, knowing that he wouldn't win the popular vote in those states but could have won the popular vote nationwide, giving him an even more lopsided victory if the pact had been in place.
Click to expand...

Someone else where in the comment section of an article on this I was reading made the point that if this passed, a lot of Dem voters are younger, and if they think "it's in the bag" and don't have to vote... they might just see a case of losing the popular vote and watching all 270 go the GOP candidate, how will that go over?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm not defending the poster, but post #33 seems to address your question about where in the Constitution. That seems to be the strongest argument against. As for the 12th Amendment and Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, I have no idea which has supremacy, if either.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't apply because the compact doesn't compel a state to do something it could have done on its own anyway.

In any case, interstate compacts do exist, so this is hardly new.

Interstate Compacts in the United States
National Center for Interstate Compacts Database

Renae said:
Someone else where in the comment section of an article on this I was reading made the point that if this passed, a lot of Dem voters are younger, and if they think "it's in the bag" and don't have to vote... they might just see a case of losing the popular vote and watching all 270 go the GOP candidate, how will that go over?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you should support the pact then.
 
Renae said:
Someone else where in the comment section of an article on this I was reading made the point that if this passed, a lot of Dem voters are younger, and if they think "it's in the bag" and don't have to vote... they might just see a case of losing the popular vote and watching all 270 go the GOP candidate, how will that go over?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt young Dem voters will ever think anything is in the bag ever again. And 2018 proved that.
 
Moderate Right said:
I have every reason to encourage blue states to join the pact while I sit back and laugh.
Click to expand...

It only took you one post to retreat from where you wrote:

"If the compact had been the law in 2016 (assuming the compact had 270 electoral votes) then Trump would have campaigned differently and went for votes in California and New York, knowing that he wouldn't win those states electoral votes but could have won the popular vote nationwide, giving him an even more lopsided victory if the pact had been in place."
 
 
Renae said:
It, is unconstitutional what they are trying to do. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Translation: "It's not the result I want, therefore it is unconstitutional." You do recognize that's not how the Constitution (Or anything else) works, right?
 
Renae said:
Someone else where in the comment section of an article on this I was reading made the point that if this passed, a lot of Dem voters are younger, and if they think "it's in the bag" and don't have to vote... they might just see a case of losing the popular vote and watching all 270 go the GOP candidate, how will that go over?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that most of the blue states joining this have many "Democratic Socialist" constituents. They naively believe they will take over the Democratic party but the fact that Biden has a considerable lead for 2020 shows that that is not the case. Democratic Socialists are a small minority in the Democratic party. As such, they are cutting their own throats by climbing on board the compact because it makes it even more hard to ever run as Independents or a third party because the compact will work against them and makes it even easier for a Republican like Trump to win the national popular vote. There can be absolutely no upside to this compact for Democrats unless red or purple states join in, which they are not. It either doesn't help them at all or it actually works against them.
 
Irwin Corey said:
I watched it ... ALL .... I think it’s odd that toons of (irritating) Englishmen are used to tell “ME”, an AmeriCAN, how my government works. So, I wasn’t surprised that they are ... WRONG.

Federalist 68 was written to explain the how and why of the electoral college. Hamilton explains there was a great concern that an unqualified charismatic con-man could smooth talk an uneducated electorate and win the popular vote. The electoral college was put in place as a buffer to preclude such an occurrence.

As we found out in 2016 nothing prevents the electoral college from failing to do the job it was created for. The 2016 election made it obvious the electoral college is an anachronism that’s out lived it’s purpose.
Click to expand...

The electoral college of the current day is very different than it was in those days. I wouldn't have been able to vote for Trump or Hillary in those days. I'd have voted for a guy who I thought was qualified to go to washington and then vote for the person that he thought was best. The current system is just a bastardization of the old system.

And the only reason Republicans like the electoral college is because it politically benefits them right now. During the 2016 election, some democrats were fighting to get electors to vote for Hillary even though Trump won the popular vote in their state. Which is perfectly legal, and is actually the entire idea of the system. Ignore what the populace wants. If there is a dangerous idiot that wants to become president, even if he has a sizable populist movement behind him, don't vote for him if you don't think he's the best choice. That's the entire premise of the electoral college. But Republicans screamed to high heavens when those democrats were arguing for that. Politics 101. Always support that which helps you politically, and always say that you support it for some lofty moral reason and not just politics.
 
Cardinal said:
It only took you one post to retreat from where you wrote:

"If the compact had been the law in 2016 (assuming the compact had 270 electoral votes) then Trump would have campaigned differently and went for votes in California and New York, knowing that he wouldn't win those states electoral votes but could have won the popular vote nationwide, giving him an even more lopsided victory if the pact had been in place."
Click to expand...

???????????? No retreat at all. Just pointing out that the compact doesn't work for Democrats unless you get some red and purple states on board, which you are not. The compact has zero upside for Democrats but could possibly have downsides, as in my example. I would absolutely love for California and New York's electoral votes to go to Trump because he won the national popular vote. I'm actually afraid I would suffer a heart attack laughing so much.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, it doesn't apply because the compact doesn't compel a state to do something it could have done on its own anyway.

In any case, interstate compacts do exist, so this is hardly new.

Interstate Compacts in the United States
National Center for Interstate Compacts Database



Sounds like you should support the pact then.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any model compact that has been approved by Congress in which joining the scheme to allocate electoral votes has been approved.

If you can show in your links an interstate compact that wasn't approved by Congress, I'm all ears. The Delaware river has several compacts which were all approved by Congress and my state partially participates in the Drivers License Compact.
 
I've tried to get through much of the chief material cited. So much of it is pure speculation and drivel. My main concern with the OP, the thread, and the argumentation is the lack of substantive basis. Renae is acting as a provocateur, but has yet to present any argument other than "you're wrong ". That is not debate, or even reasonable, hence my dismissive tone. Let me ask this, Renae, what are your views, and why?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm not aware of any model compact that has been approved by Congress in which joining the scheme to allocate electoral votes has been approved.

If you can show in your links an interstate compact that wasn't approved by Congress, I'm all ears. The Delaware river has several compacts which were all approved by Congress and my state partially participates in the Drivers License Compact.
Click to expand...

"An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States that is approved by those states’ respective legislatures, and, if required based on the subject matter of the compact, consented to by the US Congress."

And again, the compact doesn't compel a state to do something it could have done on its own anyway.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm not aware of any model compact that has been approved by Congress in which joining the scheme to allocate electoral votes has been approved.

If you can show in your links an interstate compact that wasn't approved by Congress, I'm all ears. The Delaware river has several compacts which were all approved by Congress and my state partially participates in the Drivers License Compact.
Click to expand...

This compact is not like any of the other "compacts" addressed. First, the compacts that Congress must approve are directed toward commerce and relations between the States - something clearly within Congress' authority. This compact is something entirely within the authority of the States themselves, and, ironically, does not specifically affect Congress or the federal government directly at all.

There are, in my view, a number of issues that may be raised about the practicality of the NPVIC, but constitutionality is not one of them. That has been my problem with this thread from the outset, and many of the supporting citations. They really are not very convincing or substantive. They boil down to "I don't like it."
 
Cardinal said:
bold mine

Your statement about this "backfiring" on Democrats assumes as true that we could only support a national popular vote so long as it accomplishes getting our preferred candidate into power. What you completely neglect is the possibility that we support such a policy based on principle, and that if a Republican were to win a popular vote then that principle would still be served.
Click to expand...

I would wager that quite a lot of the states now joined would revoke or rescind the compact if it looked like a Republican was going to win the popular vote with the Democrat winning the electoral college. I have no doubt considering the states which joined that this is a very partisan thing. Only wanted by Democrats, not Republicans nor by independents. To me it's like gerrymandering, each party is trying to get as much a political advantage as possible. That's normal party politics which has been with us from probably the beginning.

You may be sincere in what you said, but I highly doubt a majority of those who have joined the compact are. In the political world, things are done to obtain a political advantage. I don't blame them for trying, if I were a democrat who lost in 2000 and 2016 I'd be trying to get it also.

What stands out being a numbers guy in both 2000 and 2016 is the Democratic base turnout. In 2000 the Democrats had a 5 point edge in party affiliation or its base. But in actual voter turnout that 5 point advantage dropped to 3. The Republicans got a higher percentage of their folks to the polls than the Democrats. Same for 2016, This time the Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation which dropped to 3 points in actual voter turnout. If the actual turnout in both election matched the party's advantage as a percentage of the electorate, both Gore and Hillary would have won. Neither was able to inspire their base the way Bush and Trump did theirs. For me that explains their loss much more than trying to get a work around the electoral college. Even with a work around, candidates still need to inspire their base to get out and vote.
 
Perotista said:
I would wager that quite a lot of the states now joined would revoke or rescind the compact if it looked like a Republican was going to win the popular vote with the Democrat winning the electoral college. I have no doubt considering the states which joined that this is a very partisan thing. Only wanted by Democrats, not Republicans nor by independents. To me it's like gerrymandering, each party is trying to get as much a political advantage as possible. That's normal party politics which has been with us from probably the beginning.

You may be sincere in what you said, but I highly doubt a majority of those who have joined the compact are. In the political world, things are done to obtain a political advantage. I don't blame them for trying, if I were a democrat who lost in 2000 and 2016 I'd be trying to get it also.

What stands out being a numbers guy in both 2000 and 2016 is the Democratic base turnout. In 2000 the Democrats had a 5 point edge in party affiliation or its base. But in actual voter turnout that 5 point advantage dropped to 3. The Republicans got a higher percentage of their folks to the polls than the Democrats. Same for 2016, This time the Democrats had a 6 point advantage in party affiliation which dropped to 3 points in actual voter turnout. If the actual turnout in both election matched the party's advantage as a percentage of the electorate, both Gore and Hillary would have won. Neither was able to inspire their base the way Bush and Trump did theirs. For me that explains their loss much more than trying to get a work around the electoral college. Even with a work around, candidates still need to inspire their base to get out and vote.
Click to expand...

I believe an open seat on the Supreme Court was a huge motivation for people to get out and vote for Trump, particularly concerning second amendment rights. It was actually Mitch McConnell who drove Trump to victory in 2016.
 
Cardinal said:
"An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States that is approved by those states’ respective legislatures, and, if required based on the subject matter of the compact, consented to by the US Congress."

And again, the compact doesn't compel a state to do something it could have done on its own anyway.
Click to expand...

You are creating the distinction that they could have done it on its own. It is not me that called it a compact, but others could decide that it is in function, even if not in form. My statement about the supremacy between the 12th Amendment and Article 1 Section 10 being in question stands.

As for the rest of your quote:

"Compacts that receive congressional consent become federal law. As contracts between states, compacts affect the rights and responsibilities of states party to them (and their citizens); the US Supreme Court has indicated that the interests of non-party states could be a factor when determining whether congressional consent is required. A compact typically includes provisions regarding its purpose; specific terms with respect to the subject of the compact; in some cases, establishment of an interstate agency to administer the compact or some other method of administration; sources of funding; and other contract terms like dispute resolution, enforcement, termination of the compact, or withdrawal of a member. Numerous examples of compacts and the interstate agencies formed to administer them are available online."
 
NWRatCon said:
This compact is not like any of the other "compacts" addressed. First, the compacts that Congress must approve are directed toward commerce and relations between the States - something clearly within Congress' authority. This compact is something entirely within the authority of the States themselves, and, ironically, does not specifically affect Congress or the federal government directly at all.

There are, in my view, a number of issues that may be raised about the practicality of the NPVIC, but constitutionality is not one of them. That has been my problem with this thread from the outset, and many of the supporting citations. They really are not very convincing or substantive. They boil down to "I don't like it."
Click to expand...

Opinion noted, Article 3, Section 10 does not restrict the power based on Commerce, that is your interpretation as yet not adjudicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom