• 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


I love these guys, absolutely shred the National Popular vote compact movement


Watched it. It didn't 'shred' the NPV movement.

Doesn't seem like you either understood it or that you want to honestly represent what it stated.
 
Yes, there is a PROCESS to change the constitution, this isn't following that, so your point is... null and void.

No.

You're saying something is unconstitutional. It's not. If the process happens, and then it's introduced, it's NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Be aside from that, it's not unconstitutional anyway. There's NOTHING that says the states or electors have to vote one way or another. Literally, last election, electors went AGAINST the vote in their state.
 
No.

You're saying something is unconstitutional. It's not. If the process happens, and then it's introduced, it's NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Be aside from that, it's not unconstitutional anyway. There's NOTHING that says the states or electors have to vote one way or another. Literally, last election, electors went AGAINST the vote in their state.

It, is unconstitutional what they are trying to do. Sorry, but you're wrong.
 
It, is unconstitutional what they are trying to do. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Are we playing the game of "say it enough times and it becomes true" or something?

Since when did a decent debate lack so much.... substance.

Ever read the Constitution?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

That it. It literally says the states shall appoint someone as elector who is not a Federal representative. They could literally appoint the governor.

Where does it says that the state can't sign up to a pact and then choose electors after this based on who won the majority vote?

WHERE?
 
Are we playing the game of "say it enough times and it becomes true" or something?

Since when did a decent debate lack so much.... substance.

Ever read the Constitution?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

That it. It literally says the states shall appoint someone as elector who is not a Federal representative. They could literally appoint the governor.

Where does it says that the state can't sign up to a pact and then choose electors after this based on who won the majority vote?

WHERE?

I really hope you don't expect an honest or rational answer.
 
I really hope you don't expect an honest or rational answer.

No, but if he's going to play "I say it a million time, it will come true", I'll play along until about 2 and then get bored and go home.
 
Are we playing the game of "say it enough times and it becomes true" or something?

Since when did a decent debate lack so much.... substance.

Ever read the Constitution?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

That it. It literally says the states shall appoint someone as elector who is not a Federal representative. They could literally appoint the governor.

Where does it says that the state can't sign up to a pact and then choose electors after this based on who won the majority vote?

WHERE?

I posted several links, including the video, that you ignore, and then accuse me of not listening to you. You're not discussing anything, you're just screaming at the wind.
 
Are we playing the game of "say it enough times and it becomes true" or something?

Since when did a decent debate lack so much.... substance.

Ever read the Constitution?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

That it. It literally says the states shall appoint someone as elector who is not a Federal representative. They could literally appoint the governor.

Where does it says that the state can't sign up to a pact and then choose electors after this based on who won the majority vote?

WHERE?

Article 1 Sec 10
No state shall enter into a compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
 

Thanks, this was a thought provoking piece.

The U.S. Supreme Court says each state legislature has “plenary” (complete) power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are chosen.

But suppose a state legislature decided to raise cash by selling its electors to the highest bidder. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a measure?

Actually, maybe... People arguing against NVP are those that recognize that States are individual entities to the point that each requires reasonable representation DISproportional vs their population. As such, if we believe States are so independent, why is it any of Federal Government business how those States decide to allocate their votes, even if they choose to openly sell those votes?

Although the Constitution’s text requires that interstate compacts be approved by Congress, NPV advocates claim congressional approval of NPV is not necessary. They observe that in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) the Supreme Court held that Congress must approve a compact only when the compact increases state power at the expense of federal power.

NPV advocates may be wrong about congressional approval. It is unclear that the justices would follow U.S. Steel’s ruling now. The Constitution’s language requiring congressional approval is crystal clear, and the court today is much more respectful of the Constitution’s text and historical meaning than it was in 1978. Moreover, you can make a good argument that U.S. Steel requires congressional approval for NPV because NPV would weaken federal institutions: It would (1) abolish the role of the U.S. House of Representatives in the electoral process and (2) alter the presidential election system without congressional involvement. Furthermore, even the U.S. Steel case suggested that compacts require congressional approval whenever they “impact . . . our federal structure.”

I don't understand how runoffs in House of Representatives would be affected. Can you explain that part?

Otherwise, the article makes some interesting points that I DO understand; and I am not smart enough to know / nor do I have time to investigate whether these are indeed valid or not.

So, thanks.
 
No, but if he's going to play "I say it a million time, it will come true", I'll play along until about 2 and then get bored and go home.

You mean you're incapable of addressing the points I've several times brought up, and pretend they weren't brought up and act like you made a point. That might work in grade school... but.. not here.

The Compact, whether achieved through state statute or congressional approval, is unconstitutional because it alters provisions of the Constitution that detail the “finely wrought” procedures,[6] a term of art as defined in INS v. Chadha,[7] of the Electoral College. This does not mean that the Compact’s ultimate goal is unachievable. What it does mean is that, like other important changes to the electoral process like universal suffrage and the lowering of the voting age to eighteen, such a result must come through the Article V amendment process.[8] Supporters of the Compact, who in theory could push through their idea with just eleven states—far fewer than the thirty-eight required by Article V—hope to usurp the constitutionally required electoral procedures by keeping the technical procedure of the Electoral College in place, while in reality creating a de facto direct popular election of the President. Passed in eleven states and the District of Columbia, but not yet in effect because the compacting states first need to possess at least 270 electoral votes,[9] the Compact is a movement lurking in the halls of our electoral system, waiting to thrust the electoral system into constitutional crisis.
Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College
Taht whole thing is a great read and explains, as do all the other links I've provided how this NPV Compact isn't constitutional. I've read the Constitution, you obviously haven't.
 
Thanks, this was a thought provoking piece.



Actually, maybe... People arguing against NVP are those that recognize that States are individual entities to the point that each requires reasonable representation DISproportional vs their population. As such, if we believe States are so independent, why is it any of Federal Government business how those States decide to allocate their votes, even if they choose to openly sell those votes?



I don't understand how runoffs in House of Representatives would be affected. Can you explain that part?

Otherwise, the article makes some interesting points that I DO understand; and I am not smart enough to know / nor do I have time to investigate whether these are indeed valid or not.

So, thanks.

I liked it, I just posted another more... dry read but really focuses on the nitty gritty of the situation. REGARDLESS how you feel about the EC VS PV, the only way to change the system, would be an Article V Amendment process. Anything short of that will create huge mess.
 

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:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

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...
 
You really don't understand the constitution....

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.

I've done so with multiple links, but if you choose to ignore that, that's on you. Congress doesn't have the power to approve the PV compact, even if the states passed it.
 
Sigh, "I Didn't watch it" but I hated it.... probably because it destroys the Popular Vote compact, actually, I bet you did watch it and are incapable of countering it, thus the immature response you gave.

PS You can mute the sound and turn on CC and then you could have something to refute... TECHNOLOGY!

Since you supposedly watched it, how about giving us a summary?
 
I've done so with multiple links, but if you choose to ignore that, that's on you. Congress doesn't have the power to approve the PV compact, even if the states passed it.

Actually, you have not. You have shown some guy say why he thinks it is unconstitutional, but without actually referring to the constitution's text. Much like with your other claim about the EC, which has been shown to be wrong, your claim here is wrong.
 
Actually, you have not. You have shown some guy say why he thinks it is unconstitutional, but without actually referring to the constitution's text. Much like with your other claim about the EC, which has been shown to be wrong, your claim here is wrong.

No Redress, I provided MULTIPLE links to in depth explanations, you can claim whatever you want, you've not brought **** to table but your arrogant condescension.
The Danger of the National Popular Vote CompactHarvard Law Review | (This past week, Colorado joined a growing list of states that have signed on to the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC). The NPVC is a proposed interstate compact in which the signatory states agree that they will appoint their presidential electors in accordance with the national popular vote rather than their own state electorate’s vote....)
Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College

Both are Harvard links, in fact the first one is by someone who SUPPORTS the idea of the NPV but knows this is not a constitutional path to do it.
Here's another:
17 Reasons Why the National Popular Vote Initiative Is Likely to Fail | New York Law Journal
Only roughly half the states purport to bind electors to vote in accordance with their own state’s popular vote. A state law that purports to bind its electors to vote even in accordance with its own popular vote, let alone the nation’s, may be unconstitutional under Ray v. Blair.
Could an NPV state elector force a colleague to vote in accordance with NPV? No elector voting enforcement mechanism is provided by NPV.
Could an NPV state sue a withdrawing NPV state or its electors to vote in accordance with NPV? Where? When? How quickly?

What have you brought? Yeah, that's what I thought.
 

So, you still cannot show where in the constitution it says states cannot do it. Much like your misunderstanding of why there is an Electoral College, you misunderstand the constitution due to only reading sources telling you what you want to hear.
 
So, you still cannot show where in the constitution it says states cannot do it. Much like your misunderstanding of why there is an Electoral College, you misunderstand the constitution due to only reading sources telling you what you want to hear.

No I did show, you are not being honest.
 
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.

It certainly is possible if both parties put up the absolute bottom of the barrel trash that the absolute bottom of the barrel trash gets through. Popular vote or Electoral College won't prevent that. Part of the problem isn't with the EC, but with the way that the Republocrats have rigged the system to keep in power and prevent political competition from keeping their ideas/ideologies/candidates from being controlled by The People.

I still favor the EC. I think we do need to put more emphasis on the Faithless Elector, but I prefer the EC over a pure Popular Vote system. 2016 was Hillary's to lose...and she lost it. She could have easily won, but she ran a **** campaign and let States normally voting D fall to the R. The system isn't broke, it was the compromise between States and Population, a Republic is concerned with both. It's why we have the Senate and the House. So it's fine.

But the EC cannot stop a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich from being elected if the Republocrats only put up Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches.
 
Electoral College is an outdated relic from the past.....America needs to get rid of it.......

Like I said, we could nullify the EC through the NPVIC or the right could reverse Citizens United and give up their gerrymandering addiction. Yes, anyone on the Left who is benefiting from gerrymandering loses their cushion too, small price to pay.
And the right could also force an overturn on the recent SCOTUS cutdown on the Voting Rights Act, and force VRA states to reopen all the polling places that they SHUT DOWN in minority areas.

Then we are left with the EC and ONLY the EC as an influence on the voting process, and it would be pretty much what it has been all through our history, a mild sop to the elites and nothing more.

I mention CU, gerrymandering and SCOTUS reversal of VRA not because there is a clear dotted line between any of them and the EC but because in the end, we are talking about an overall net effect.
CU drowns out the voice of the individual voter in favor of large often corporate backed organized blocks of unlimited money, cancellation of the VRA removes voter access to polls in minority areas in the South, and gerrymandering flips the process on its head to where candidates choose their voters instead of voters choosing candidates, making even a clear win a mathematical impossibility.
All of these are distortions in the democratic process.

So like I said, because the EC is enshrined in the Constitution, we should allow some weight, but we can't when it is amplified to a distortion level tool by these other developments and therefore a workaround is an idea whose time has come.
The Right wants the EC as their power cheat, okay let them have it but they only get ONE, not three or FOUR.

And by the way, several states and a bunch of local governments have already begun to nullify Citizens United anyway.
 
You mean you're incapable of addressing the points I've several times brought up, and pretend they weren't brought up and act like you made a point. That might work in grade school... but.. not here.

Combination Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College
Taht whole thing is a great read and explains, as do all the other links I've provided how this NPV Compact isn't constitutional. I've read the Constitution, you obviously haven't.

"States cannot be allowed to bind electors as the Compact envisions, even though they have the general authority to bind electors." :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
No I did show, you are not being honest.

Do you really not know the difference between the Constitution of the United States of America and the opinions of people?
 
Do you really not know the difference between the Constitution of the United States of America and the opinions of people?

I do understand it, you obviously haven't read the Constitution nor do you understand the concept of discussion and bringing in sources to bolster. Obviously for you Redress's view trumps all, and it's why I hate trying to have a discussion with you. Your arrogance is astoundingly Trump like. I brought sources, to bolster why, your contention, that the Constitution would allow the EC to be undermined without an AMENDMENT, is wrong! you haven't brought dick to back your opinion, no countering claims, articles, reviews, information. Just arrogance. Is that why you hate Trump so? You hear him and see yourself?
 
So if the NPVIC gains 270 and SCOTUS wants to deliberate, let them deliberate.
Renae you seem confident that SCOTUS would strike down the NPVIC and I say let's see how sure you really are, bring it on.

I am not at all sure NPVIC is going to gain 270 before the 2020 election anyway, we're getting close but not nearly close enough, so both sides probably have ample time to kick this can down the road until 2024.
But anyway, if a miracle happens and NPVIC does indeed get enough votes, I am fairly certain SCOTUS will be interested.
Let them take their shot.
 
Christ, that was insufferable. I stopped watching after five seconds. Do you have an argument of your own to present or is "Watch my video!" all you've got?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom