• 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

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

Except for the fact that the US Constitution doesn't say this.

It says TREATY, alliance or confederation.



https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3186&context=mulr

"During the past three decades, the use of the interstate compact, as authorized by the United States Constitution,' has come into prominence as an effective device for the settling of differences between states or regions,"

Seems states can enter into compacts and it seems the US Constitution authorizes this.

So, WHERE does the Constitution outlaw this?
 
I don't think Congress would give their approval. But as I've said, SCOTUS jurisprudence for 200 years have held that the Compact Clause does not apply to every agreement between the states. Thinking that any federal court would see this and immediately strike it down is incorrect.

It is a difficult issue, with rarely interpreted Constitutional provisions. It is not going to be a slam-dunk case for either side.
The court has been reluctant to make a decision with regard to international agreements between States that did not involve Congress' prior consent, but I think you will find the court's opinion concerning a compact between States to deliberately subvert the US Constitution to be considerably different. They will have no difficulty shutting it down since the compact's intent has always been unconstitutional.
 
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.

So this is your "evidence"?

Would you care to point to any of that parts that you're going to use in YOUR argument. Or are you simply posting sources and hoping that people think you actually have an argument and have backed it up?
 
The court has been reluctant to make a decision with regard to international agreements between States that did not involve Congress' prior consent, but I think you will find the court's opinion concerning a compact between States to deliberately subvert the US Constitution to be considerably different. They will have no difficulty shutting it down since the compact's intent has always been unconstitutional.

Do you have any examples of any compact that states have made between themselves that has been declared unconstitutional?
 
Just one. It resulted in the Civil War.

Well, there's a big difference between the Confederation which is clearly unconstitutional as it says so in the Constitution, and states making deals among themselves.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3186&context=mulr

I posted this before, it's from 1952/53

"During the past three decades, the use of the interstate compact,
as authorized by the United States Constitution,' has come into
prominence as an effective device for the settling of differences
between states or regions,"

States are not barred from making agreements with each other.

A List of States With Reciprocal Tax Agreements

"Reciprocal agreements allow residents of one state to work in other neighboring states without having to file nonresident state tax returns there."

There are many agreements, carry and conceal permits too.

States are not permitted to act as sovereign countries and make deals with foreign countries, though I'm sure this happens too.
 
Do you have any examples of any compact that states have made between themselves that has been declared unconstitutional?

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the inhabitants of such State, being eighteen years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens eighteen years of age in such State.”

In other words, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the Colorado legislature the power to designate a slate of candidates that finished second as the state’s electors — even though this self-evidently abridges the voting rights of the Coloradans who cast ballots for the slate that finished first — by rendering their votes meaningless.

But Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that if the Colorado legislature follows through and does this, the state could lose at least half of its seats in Congress.
The anti-Electoral College compact may come with a nasty surprise - Boulder Weekly
 
Well, there's a big difference between the Confederation which is clearly unconstitutional as it says so in the Constitution, and states making deals among themselves.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...o.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3186&context=mulr

I posted this before, it's from 1952/53

"During the past three decades, the use of the interstate compact,
as authorized by the United States Constitution,' has come into
prominence as an effective device for the settling of differences
between states or regions,"

States are not barred from making agreements with each other.

A List of States With Reciprocal Tax Agreements

"Reciprocal agreements allow residents of one state to work in other neighboring states without having to file nonresident state tax returns there."

There are many agreements, carry and conceal permits too.

States are not permitted to act as sovereign countries and make deals with foreign countries, though I'm sure this happens too.

The US Constitution specifically prohibits interstate agreements and compacts, so your text is in error. States are not barred from making agreements with each other PROVIDING they have prior congressional approval.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As long as they have congressional approval, then it is constitutional. Otherwise it is not.

And reciprocity is not an agreement between two or more States. It is merely one State acknowledging and respecting the law of another State and does not require an agreement between either State.
 
And...?

Posting a source doesn't mean anything to me.

WHAT PART OF THE SOURCE BACKS UP YOUR ARGUMENT?

I'm not reading through a whole source in the hope of making your argument for you.

It's not hard to say "this is my argument, and this and this and this back up my argument", is it?

You didnt' read that did you? Thought not. Please don't respond, I am not interested in trading words with you further.
 
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?

Basic argument is: the system works as designed protecting smaller states from being buried under the tyranny of the majority. On a pure popular vote three or four states would dominate elections. In the 2016 election Hillary's margin in California was almost TWICE the number or her overall total. California would obliterate the voice of a dozen less populous states.
 
The court has been reluctant to make a decision with regard to international agreements between States that did not involve Congress' prior consent, but I think you will find the court's opinion concerning a compact between States to deliberately subvert the US Constitution to be considerably different. They will have no difficulty shutting it down since the compact's intent has always been unconstitutional.

Not just International agreements between states.
 
The US Constitution specifically prohibits interstate agreements and compacts, so your text is in error. States are not barred from making agreements with each other PROVIDING they have prior congressional approval.



As long as they have congressional approval, then it is constitutional. Otherwise it is not.

And reciprocity is not an agreement between two or more States. It is merely one State acknowledging and respecting the law of another State and does not require an agreement between either State.


I disagree that reciprocity agreements are just "acknowledging and respecting the law of another State". They're deals the same as any other deal.

Also the other problem is the states could easily make a law which reads something like "when a majority of electors are voting based on this principle, then this state will also follow this principle". It only requires a "deal" or an acknowledgement that they will follow this principle. There doesn't need to actually be fully fledged agreements in the sense of trade deals or the like.

Guide to the Constitution

"While the Supreme Court has never found a state compact void for want of congressional approval, some contemporary unapproved interstate agreements (such as the 1998 tobacco settlement between attorneys general and manufacturers) establish tax and regulatory regimes of unprecedented complexity and consequence. It remains to be seen whether this emerging trend could prompt a reexamination and rediscovery of the forgotten Compact Clause."
 
Basic argument is: the system works as designed protecting smaller states from being buried under the tyranny of the majority. On a pure popular vote three or four states would dominate elections. In the 2016 election Hillary's margin in California was almost TWICE the number or her overall total. California would obliterate the voice of a dozen less populous states.

How do you know it was designed for that purpose? Do you have something in the Constitution or other writings of the Founding Fathers to support that claim?

If the answer to that is "yes," then please cut and past the relevant portion from those writings and link to them.
 
How do you know it was designed for that purpose? Do you have something in the Constitution or other writings of the Founding Fathers to support that claim?

If the answer to that is "yes," then please cut and past the relevant portion from those writings and link to them.
The yes to your question is yes as has been discussed he many times. The answer to your request from me to cut and paste - answer is "no".
 
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.
This was almost as humorous as the vid. I loved how you worked in a couple of irrelevant Far Law buggaboos, Citizens United and gerrymandering into the conversation. You guys are amazing, you must have all these little irritants buzzing around your brain constantly. Haven't heard the Koch Bros whine lately, did it fall off the map?
 
The yes to your question is yes as has been discussed he many times. The answer to your request from me to cut and paste - answer is "no".

It was a rhetorical question. I knew you wouldn't be able to cite any such writings because I already knew in advance that no such writings existed.
 
The popular vote is supposed to not matter, for a reason.
^^^
This quote is on my top ten list of ignorant republican quotes and if I knew how to do it, I would make put it on my signature at the bottom of every one of my future comments.

James Madison, who was from Virginia and owned more than 100+ slaves, wanted slaves to count in their actual numbers. Other southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population. Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two. So, southern states were able to count 3 out of 5 slaves towards the population of their states for legislative purposes.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally."

There have been many presidential elections in history where a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election due to the electoral college. The most recent of course Trump and before him George W. Bush in 2000. The number of Representatives is roughly proportional to total U. S. population, but even the smallest state also contributes two Electors to its roster, by virtue of sending two Senators to Congress. Therefore, not even the smallest state, Wyoming can have fewer than three Electoral votes. BUT, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%

A better way of measuring a voter's clout in a presidential election is simply whether or not they live in a swing state. Those voters that live in "spectator states" essentially have no clout, as candidates know that the outcomes in those states are already decided. There is very little incentive to campaign in those states or respond to the needs of those voters.

The concept that the electoral college is some sacred democratic process that protects smaller less populous states is just another fake fact put out by Republicans because they are embarrassed that they can’t get a president by majority in spite of their extensive programs of voter suppression.

Mexico once had electoral votes, that was before they had a 10 year revolution, from 1910 to 1920 that changed that law. Mexico presidents are now decided entirely based on popular vote. Our electoral college is unfair, outdated and has to be eliminated sooner rather than later.
 
Last edited:
It was a rhetorical question. I knew you wouldn't be able to cite any such writings because I already knew in advance that no such writings existed.
Sure you did. :roll:
 
Sure you did. :roll:

This isn’t my first electoral college versus popular vote debate. I already know which information the pro-EC side has to support their position and which information they don’t.
 
Basic argument is: the system works as designed protecting smaller states from being buried under the tyranny of the majority. On a pure popular vote three or four states would dominate elections. In the 2016 election Hillary's margin in California was almost TWICE the number or her overall total. California would obliterate the voice of a dozen less populous states.

It doesn't protect the smaller states at all.

Wyoming has more than 3 times the voting power of California, per capita, and yet gets totally and utterly ignored.

In fact, Proportional Representation or a French style run off (with PR in the House) would actually make Wyoming more interesting for potential candidates.

Right now Wyoming is like like the 1 cent state, as this is how much candidates are willing to spend on Wyoming.
 
I disagree that reciprocity agreements are just "acknowledging and respecting the law of another State". They're deals the same as any other deal.
In Alaska there is no Concealed Carry Permit required to carry a concealed weapon. Literally anyone from any State can legally carry a concealed firearm in Alaska. That does not require an agreement with any other State. If you are a CCP holder from Florida (or even if you are not), you can legally carry a concealed firearm in Alaska, and there are no agreements between the States to make that happen.

Even though Alaska does not require a CCP to carry a concealed firearm, it does issue CCPs to its residents for reciprocity purposes with other States. Texas, for example, will honor CCPs issued by Alaska.
 
In Alaska there is no Concealed Carry Permit required to carry a concealed weapon. Literally anyone from any State can legally carry a concealed firearm in Alaska. That does not require an agreement with any other State. If you are a CCP holder from Florida (or even if you are not), you can legally carry a concealed firearm in Alaska, and there are no agreements between the States to make that happen.

Even though Alaska does not require a CCP to carry a concealed firearm, it does issue CCPs to its residents for reciprocity purposes with other States. Texas, for example, will honor CCPs issued by Alaska.

Okay, in Alaska there doesn't need to be an agreement. Except that when someone from Alaska goes to another state, then what? Then there's a deal. A deal that doesn't need Congressional approval.

Now, New York doesn't need an agreement to say "our electors will vote for the person who won the popular vote", does it? Nor does it require congressional approval if it says "our electors will vote for the person who won the popular vote if a majority of electors do the same", now does it?
 
Now, New York doesn't need an agreement to say "our electors will vote for the person who won the popular vote", does it? Nor does it require congressional approval if it says "our electors will vote for the person who won the popular vote if a majority of electors do the same", now does it?

Everything you said it absolutely true. New York, or any other State, can make whatever decision they desire with respect to how their Electors for the Electoral College are chosen. If they want to flip a coin to decide, they can. It is anything the State legislature decides.

The matter would end there if not for the illegal and unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The US Constitution specifically prohibits collusion among the States to unconstitutionally influence a national election. Lets face reality, any method other than an individual State deciding for itself how to determine its Electors - as Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 specifies - is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Everything you said it absolutely true. New York, or any other State, can make whatever decision they desire with respect to how their Electors for the Electoral College are chosen. If they want to flip a coin to decide, they can. It is anything the State legislature decides.

The matter would end there if not for the illegal and unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The US Constitution specifically prohibits collusion among the States to unconstitutionally influence a national election. Lets face reality, any method other than a individual State deciding for itself how to determine its Electors - as Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 specifies - is unconstitutional.

And this is one of those problems with the EC. It's inherently ridiculous.

It's from a time when some states didn't have elections at all. It's from a time when democracy wasn't thought of in terms of "the people" but in terms of people with money, and not really that important.
 
Back
Top Bottom