If enough states sign off on the compact, all those states can then simply change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner regardless of the compact

The compact states it doesn't become effective until enough states sign on. Once they sign on, you don't need the compact and can just make the law make it the decision of the individual state.

If individual states change their laws with no binding compact as the premise there is no interstate compact

(10-15-2021 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If enough states sign off on the compact, all those states can then simply change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner regardless of the compact

The compact states it doesn't become effective until enough states sign on. Once they sign on, you don't need the compact and can just make the law make it the decision of the individual state.

If individual states change their laws with no binding compact as the premise there is no interstate compact

The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

(10-15-2021 01:30 PM)mvymvy Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If enough states sign off on the compact, all those states can then simply change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner regardless of the compact

The compact states it doesn't become effective until enough states sign on. Once they sign on, you don't need the compact and can just make the law make it the decision of the individual state.

If individual states change their laws with no binding compact as the premise there is no interstate compact

The National Popular Vote bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

My post was in reference to the idea the compact would be unconstitutional

The way around that would be to simply change the law to remove any mention of the compact and make the law state this is the decision of the state and will happen regardless of other states actions.

If enough states sign on to the compact those same states should have no issue removing the compact trigger from the law

(10-14-2021 06:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  If we ever go to a National Popular Vote instead of the Electoral College, it will be the end of our Republic. I picture the whole country looking like Detroit or the Southside of Chicago. Democrat controlled slums from sea to sea.

Thanks but no thanks….

Theyre trying that already.

For anyone interested, go read up on the “Homes Act”. It’s in that ridiculous monstrosity they’re trying to ram through the senate without a single R vote.

You live in the quiet leafy burbs? Welll, that will be changing if this gets passed. Welcome the low income, section 8 High Rise buildings going in what vacant land had previously been set aside for a variety of reasons, environmental, open spaces etc.

These lunatics really do want to ruin this great American experiment. And they do it by a thousand cuts,


Rust never sleeps.

(10-15-2021 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If enough states sign off on the compact, all those states can then simply change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner regardless of the compact

The compact states it doesn't become effective until enough states sign on. Once they sign on, you don't need the compact and can just make the law make it the decision of the individual state.

If individual states change their laws with no binding compact as the premise there is no interstate compact

which essentially implies collusion until ‘purple turns blue’ while a smattering of corrupt ‘pink’ tossers subvert ‘constitutional intent’ …

In the infamous words of the dunkster……





Y’all starting to figure this sh!t out, yet?






Suckers

(10-15-2021 07:29 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  oh my my - compare ‘16 to ‘20 - then get back to me with another worthless diatribe of pointless nonsense …

Yea, no sh!t

Who’s the new bot?!?

Damn. Wall after wall after wall of all the same crap.

Wow

Is jonnyzerO back?!?

(10-15-2021 01:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 01:27 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If enough states sign off on the compact, all those states can then simply change their laws to award their electors to the popular vote winner regardless of the compact

The compact states it doesn't become effective until enough states sign on. Once they sign on, you don't need the compact and can just make the law make it the decision of the individual state.

If individual states change their laws with no binding compact as the premise there is no interstate compact

which essentially implies collusion until ‘purple turns blue’ while a smattering of corrupt ‘pink’ tossers subvert ‘constitutional intent’ …

In the infamous words of the dunkster……





Y’all starting to figure this sh!t out, yet?






Suckers

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

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. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting the National Popular Vote bill would not need an amendment. State-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral vote

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

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.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, 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 (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

Pure democracy is inherently evil, because it's mob rule.

Exactly.

There’s very good reason we’re not a direct democracy.

But, let the bot bot, I guess.

(10-15-2021 02:20 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Exactly.

There’s very good reason we’re not a direct democracy.

But, let the bot bot, I guess.

Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

With the National Popular Vote bill, we would not do away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election by the Electoral College of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a direct democracy.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or direct democracy. It is not rule by referendum.

I clicked the thread, read a few lines of one of mvymvy's posts spewing nonsense, scrolled down, read the first few lines of another post, found a whole bunch of more like that. This is the first I've seen him post & I'm tempted to put him on Ignore & I never do that.

EDIT: Done deal. Been posting since 2012. Welcome to being the first put on Ignore mvymvy.

(10-15-2021 04:30 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I clicked the thread, read a few lines of one of mvymvy's posts spewing nonsense, scrolled down, read the first few lines of another post, found a whole bunch of more like that. This is the first I've seen him post & I'm tempted to put him on Ignore & I never do that.

EDIT: Done deal. Been posting since 2012. Welcome to being the first put on Ignore mvymvy.

Which facts, specifically, do you not accept?

(10-15-2021 01:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-14-2021 06:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  If we ever go to a National Popular Vote instead of the Electoral College, it will be the end of our Republic. I picture the whole country looking like Detroit or the Southside of Chicago. Democrat controlled slums from sea to sea.

Thanks but no thanks….

Theyre trying that already.

For anyone interested, go read up on the “Homes Act”. It’s in that ridiculous monstrosity they’re trying to ram through the senate without a single R vote.

You live in the quiet leafy burbs? Welll, that will be changing if this gets passed. Welcome the low income, section 8 High Rise buildings going in what vacant land had previously been set aside for a variety of reasons, environmental, open spaces etc.

These lunatics really do want to ruin this great American experiment. And they do it by a thousand cuts,


Rust never sleeps.

I live in a small rural community on the south side of Louisville. There is a Section 8 housing complex about two miles from my home. Well kept no problems with the residents. You never hear of anything happening there.

A few years ago Louisville started a scattered site housing initiative. Its had mixed results. The idea was to break up some of the city’s housing projects.

I doubt we see anymore Section 8 housing in our area. We already have our allotment lol.

(10-15-2021 07:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  boys and girls … oh my my is a canned ai/bot/wtfe program, or someone pulling from a canned site …

thus, the internutz experiment continues …

It's all copy and paste and not worth reading.

(10-15-2021 04:46 PM)mvymvy Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 04:30 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I clicked the thread, read a few lines of one of mvymvy's posts spewing nonsense, scrolled down, read the first few lines of another post, found a whole bunch of more like that. This is the first I've seen him post & I'm tempted to put him on Ignore & I never do that.

EDIT: Done deal. Been posting since 2012. Welcome to being the first put on Ignore mvymvy.

Which facts, specifically, do you not accept?

What facts have you presented? Where have you cited your sources?

Here's the elephant in the room that nobody is addressing. This is an issue because we are not following the original concept of the founders.

The original concept of the founders was that, among the three branches, the legislative would be the first among equals. Congress would pass the laws and the president would merely carry them out. That has changed as congress has ceded more and more power to the president, and particularly to the myriad of unelected and virtually unaccountable administrative law agencies. In addition, the expansion of the courts' powers to declare laws unconstitutional and to issue injunctive remedies has eaten further into the lawmaking power of congress.

I would try to restore some of the originally intended balance by:

1) reducing the power of the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats by:
a) requiring congressional advise and consent for new rulemaking if the effect will be greater tan $1 billion or if 20% of congress votes to require it;
b) requiring sunset review of every agency and every rule issued by it every ten years; and
c) replacing the captive ALJs who currently hear administrative disputes with independent Article III administrative law courts in every federal judicial district.

2) reducing and reversing the creeping judicial power by:
a) allowing only the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional, and limiting lower courts to interpretation;
b) restricting the effectiveness to any order of any lower court to the respective district or circuit that is the jurisdiction of that court; and
c) increasing the Supreme Court to 13 members--of whom one must come from each of the 11 numbered circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit--with appropriate interim/transitional rules

(10-15-2021 05:32 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 04:46 PM)mvymvy Wrote:  

(10-15-2021 04:30 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I clicked the thread, read a few lines of one of mvymvy's posts spewing nonsense, scrolled down, read the first few lines of another post, found a whole bunch of more like that. This is the first I've seen him post & I'm tempted to put him on Ignore & I never do that.

EDIT: Done deal. Been posting since 2012. Welcome to being the first put on Ignore mvymvy.

Which facts, specifically, do you not accept?

What facts have you presented? Where have you cited your sources?

Water is wet. Do you need to see a source to make it a fact?

13 years of research from MULTIPLE sources. Google any of it. NationalPopularVote.com is one resource.

This clown/troll is definitely copying and pasting. Starting at the beginning of this thread, look at the time stamps for her posts.

Ban this troll. She's using this board to campaign for something virtually nobody except brain dead leftist morons want.

(10-15-2021 06:56 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  This clown/troll is definitely copying and pasting. Starting at the beginning of this thread, look at the time stamps for her posts.

Ban this troll. She's using this board to campaign for something virtually nobody except brain dead leftist morons want.

Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill have included former Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian – NM), Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote has included former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah), plus Michael Steele (former RNC Chair), and Rick Tyler

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

Bob Barr (2008 Libertarian presidential candidate) supports the National Popular Vote bill: “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.”

Supporters include:
The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Rick Tyler, senior member of Senator Ted Cruz's campaign team, serving as the National Spokesman and Communications Director for Cruz for President.

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

Since polling began in 1944 until the 2016 election, support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in polls

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes – 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.

In 1970, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 for a national popular vote.
3 Southern segregationist Senators filibustered it.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA),

(10-15-2021 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the elephant in the room that nobody is addressing. This is an issue because we are not following the original concept of the founders.

The original concept of the founders was that, among the three branches, the legislative would be the first among equals. Congress would pass the laws and the president would merely carry them out. That has changed as congress has ceded more and more power to the president, and particularly to the myriad of unelected and virtually unaccountable administrative law agencies. In addition, the expansion of the courts' powers to declare laws unconstitutional and to issue injunctive remedies has eaten further into the lawmaking power of congress.

Definitely a problem. I notice it when Republicans control the executive branch too & don't like it. For example we saw it all last year when the governors/presidents/agencies were doing everything by themselves. Awful awful.