Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,562
Based on the wikipedia article and googling, the constitutionality of this proposal doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting, RTFirefly. IANAL, but there plenty of constitutional lawyers who assert that it's constitutional (as well as those who claim it is not), according to the series of tubes.
  #52  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:09 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Based on the wikipedia article and googling, the constitutionality of this proposal doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting, RTFirefly. IANAL, but there plenty of constitutional lawyers who assert that it's constitutional (as well as those who claim it is not), according to the series of tubes.
To me, I think it would be one thing if all the states agreed to the Nebraska or Maine approach, which is something that is set up in advance. The NPVIC sets up a system that changes every election, depending on what happens in other states. That doesn't sound like a Republican form of government to me. Ultimately, it goes to the SCOTUS and Kennedy decides.

I mean, the constitution says the states get to decide how the electors are chosen, but could a state say that it was going to consult the state Astrologer on how to do so? Again, not Republican.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 02:11 PM.
  #53  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:10 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
C-O-M-P-A-C-T. Article I, Section 10 explicitly says that's a no-no.
Glad to see you know how to spell. Definition is the problem, though.

Quote:
No question that the states can individually decide to give their electors to the popular vote winner, regardless of who got more votes in their state.
So we're done, right?

Quote:
They just can't make a compact with other states concerning this activity unless Congress gives its blessing.
Often asserted, never explained. But you can fix that.

Quote:
But if the other three corners of the intersection also have gas stations, we can't make an agreement to all raise prices together.
That's a restraint of trade problem, not the existence of an agreement. States can't restrain trade, either. So?

Quote:
Why are we still having this conversation?
Maybe because some people would rather spell words than discuss content?
  #54  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:11 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Based on the wikipedia article and googling, the constitutionality of this proposal doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting, RTFirefly. IANAL, but there plenty of constitutional lawyers who assert that it's constitutional (as well as those who claim it is not), according to the series of tubes.
OK, feel free to summarize their arguments here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
OK, now I've got Aretha's voice singing melodiously in my head!
Brightens one's day, doesn't it?

Considering that nearly everything reminds me of a song (my wife and son will vouch for this - drives them nuts! ), I'm surprised I didn't make that connection when I was typing it!
  #55  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:12 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,768
What explanation is needed beyond quoting Article 1, section 10?

But even with the need to get Congress's approval, it's still a heck of a lot easier than passing an amendment.
  #56  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:12 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The NPVIC sets up a system that changes every election, depending on what happens in other states.
The traditional EC only becomes determinative again if enough states repeal their enacting legislation to drop the total below 50%. But that would be known in advance of the election.
  #57  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:28 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I'm a little surprised that the wikipedia article never mentions the "Republican form of government" clause. I notice that the wikipedia article on that clause says:

Quote:
In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court held that the determination of whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a political question to be resolved by the Congress. In effect, the court held the clause to be non-justiciable.
But then it says:

Quote:
While the Supreme Court's holding in Luther v. Borden still holds today, the Court, by looking to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted 19 years after Luther v. Borden was decided), has developed new criteria for determining which questions are political in nature and which are justiciable.
Where are those lawyers when you need them?

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 02:28 PM.
  #58  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:35 PM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,477
I see a problem with any sort of popular vote election for President - who counts the votes?

If each state does it, then what stops the states that don't support the compact from passing the following law:
"The 'official' statewide vote count for a Presidential election shall be that the candidate with the most votes shall be announced as having received all of the eligible votes cast in that election, and all other candidates shall have received zero votes, until January 21 of the year following the one in which the election took place, at which time the official counts shall reflect the actual votes cast for each candidate."
For example, in Florida, there were 9,420,039 votes cast, of which 4,617,886 were for Trump and 4,504,975 were for Clinton. Up through 1/20/2017, the "official" Florida count would be, 9,420,039 for Trump, and zero for Clinton.
Going by the vote counts on Wikipedia, if every state did this, then the final result would have been:
Trump, 77,197,104
Clinton, 59,472,133
  #59  
Old 01-03-2018, 02:50 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Is there any federal law requiring the states to announce the popular vote? Can the feds even require that?
  #60  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:05 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Based on the wikipedia article and googling, the constitutionality of this proposal doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you're suggesting, RTFirefly. IANAL, but there plenty of constitutional lawyers who assert that it's constitutional (as well as those who claim it is not), according to the series of tubes.
I fully acknowledge that. But I also recognize that sometimes lawyers are not providing a dispassionate analysis of the law, and are simply making a case for their clients.

In this particular case, there are two constitutional provisions at play:

1. The Constitution lets states determine their method of determining electors.
2. The Constitution says interstate compacts require congressional approval.

Supporters are saying "Only pay attention to number 1; it overrides number 2."

I, and some other critics are saying, "That's not how laws work. If you can find a way to give two conflicting provisions of law effect, you are supposed to read those provisions as not having one override the other."

That's what leads me to my conclusion: states can choose electors by many methods, but if they are acting in concert with other states to choose electors by one particular method, that is subject to congressional approval.

I should also add that there is one paper out there that suggests that Congress is prohibited from approving such an interstate compact. The idea is that the Constitution does not provide for a popular election, and also the Supremacy Clause prohibits laws that would violate the Constitution. So this argument goes, passing a law that provides for popular vote elections is contrary to the Constitution, so Congress can't pass a law that is in effect rewriting the Constitution.

I don't think I totally buy that argument, but it is an interesting perspective.
  #61  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:17 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Glad to see you know how to spell. Definition is the problem, though.
You already said, "OK, suit yourself, it's a compact." So that point's settled. It's a compact.
Quote:
So we're done, right?
Yeppers.
  #62  
Old 01-03-2018, 03:55 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
OK, feel free to summarize their arguments here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What explanation is needed beyond quoting Article 1, section 10?
The issue, I think, is Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), which dealt with the border between the two states.

Based on a quick read, the Court reasoned:

1. Taken at its extreme, the section would ban any agreement between two states with Congressional approval, such as an agreement to purchase property or contracting for services. (Or draining a swamp, in an example that I'm not sure I follow). This can't be what the Constitution intends since it would burden congress and/or prevent the states from coordinating in emergencies.

2. If it doesn't mean that, then we need to consider the terms in their context (apply the cannon of Noscitur a sociis).

3. Doing so, we conclude that Congressional approval is only required for "the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."

Whether or not the NPVIC is such an agreement is where the debate would be.

Last edited by Falchion; 01-03-2018 at 03:55 PM.
  #63  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You already said, "OK, suit yourself, it's a compact."
For the purpose of actually discussing the point with you, my hopes of which are now dashed. Your concession is inferred and accepted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Where are those lawyers when you need them?
Right next to the guns and money.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-03-2018 at 04:09 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:09 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
In my experience, a SCOTUS case rarely rests simply on how the current justices interpret one sentence in a 120-year-old case.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 04:09 PM.
  #65  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:24 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
In my experience, a SCOTUS case rarely rests simply on how the current justices interpret one sentence in a 120-year-old case.
The point is that the clause has not been interpreted in a strong way for all those years. There must have been thousands of small agreements between states in since then, none of which required Congressional approval because they don't encroach on Federal supremacy. So the question is whether NPVIC does this or not.
  #66  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:30 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
The point is that the clause has not been interpreted in a strong way for all those years. There must have been thousands of small agreements between states in since then, none of which required Congressional approval because they don't encroach on Federal supremacy. So the question is whether NPVIC does this or not.
I understood the point; I just think it's absurdly simplistic. If this ever comes into play, there will be dozens of lawsuits with the highest priced lawyers you can imagine. They will bring up every legal concept, new and old, that they can think of. And this is not a "small agreement". It will have been the mother of all agreements, to borrow a phrase.
  #67  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:31 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,169
All I know is that if a state were honestly serious about this, they would independently apportion their EVs based on the popular vote winner and not need a compact for it.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #68  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:34 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Don't know what this has to do with anything. A national popular vote for President (whether enacted through Constitutional amendment or through the process this thread suggests) wouldn't affect state governments.
Yes it would.

Quote:
Whatever this is referring to (and I'm not sure what it has to do with my posts) doesn't appear to have anything to do with this thread's topic.
Why not extend your concept which you are so strongly in favor for internationally? Why dissolve the concept of states' rights and not nations'? Try to reason through the implications of your arguments.
  #69  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:49 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
They will bring up every legal concept, new and old, that they can think of. And this is not a "small agreement". It will have been the mother of all agreements, to borrow a phrase.
Sure. Chronos asked why anything was needed beyond quoting Article 1, Section 10, and RTFirefly made the argument ad spellium of writing out C-O-M-P-A-C-T. The point is just that the NPVIC, despite having compact in the name, is not necessarily a compact for the purposes of Article 1, Section 10. But then, maybe it is. Lawyers will fight it out.
  #70  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:53 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I also think the idea that this compact is heading for success is also pretty simplistic, given the states that have signed on so far. Here they are, with their ratio of votes for Obama : Romney in 2012 (to keep the Trump mess out of it):

1 Maryland 62% : 36%
2 New Jersey 58% : 41%
3 Illinois 58% : 41%
4 Hawaii 71% : 28%
5 Washington 56% : 41%
6 Massachusetts 61% : 38%
7 District of Columbia 91% : 7.3%
8 Vermont 67% : 31%
9 California 60% : 37%
10 Rhode Island 63% : 35%
11 New York 63% : 35 %

That's an average of 62% : 36% (leaving out DC because it's an outlier and so small). Your typical state that goes for this is a ~2:1 Democrat state.

It may get CT, DE, and ME. That's 11 more EC votes, bringing the total to 176. I'm not sure where the rest of the 94 EC votes are supposed to come from.

Dr. Strangelove: My post was in response to Falchion's post #62.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 04:55 PM.
  #71  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:53 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
All I know is that if a state were honestly serious about this, they would independently apportion their EVs based on the popular vote winner and not need a compact for it.
That's absurd. Just one state doing this, or a handful, achieves nothing and only weakens a state's power. The whole point to the compact is that it's all-or-nothing; it behaves as the current system until a threshold is met, and then it behaves as a true popular vote. There is never any intermediate system that's worse than either approach.
  #72  
Old 01-03-2018, 04:57 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Dr. Strangelove: My post was in response to Falchion's post #62.
Who was responding to Chronos's post #55.
  #73  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:02 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Who was responding to Chronos's post #55.
Yeah, but I was responding only the Falchion. His post can stand by itself. I'm just explaining my post, and why I'm not planning on arguing with you any further.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-03-2018 at 05:02 PM.
  #74  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:12 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Yeah, but I was responding only the Falchion. His post can stand by itself. I'm just explaining my post, and why I'm not planning on arguing with you any further.
If you aren't taking the context of Falchion's post into account, then you're responding to the wrong thing. It was never claimed that SCOTUS would take that case into account, just that it established the principle that Article 1, Section 10 cannot possibly cover all agreements or compacts between states.

Incidentally, the states in which at least one state house (upper or lower) passed the compact cover 285 EVs. That's at least a little encouraging--there is some degree of support even in places like Oklahoma. Still some work to be done, though.
  #75  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Yes it would.
Whatever. Not interested in rote contradiction.

Quote:
Why not extend your concept which you are so strongly in favor for internationally? Why dissolve the concept of states' rights and not nations'? Try to reason through the implications of your arguments.
Where did I suggest dissolving the concept of states' rights?
  #76  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:37 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
As soon as the total breaks 50%, we have a national popular vote, like a civilized democracy.
As a point of order, well actually more of an emphatic rebuttal, there are more than a few democracies, civilised democracies, long standing stable civilised democracies, who don't use a raw popular election count to determine their head of state, head of government or both.

I can name a whole hat full of less than stable, less than civilised or less than long standing democracies who do. American exceptionalism just keeps putting you unnecessarily in less than stellar company.

Would looking how most of your global peers do it be that much of a kick in the patoot?
__________________
When action grows unprofitable, gather information; when information grows unprofitable, sleepĒ. U.K. Le Guin
  #77  
Old 01-03-2018, 05:53 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
This could also be done, but would only really work if everyone, all 50 states, implemented it at once. When you're in an environment where other states assign their electors winner-takes-all, if you start assigning yours proportionately, then it just dilutes your influence.
Not necessarily.

If the margin is large and national then the influence of the smaller than average states is reduced.

But if things get tight and differentiated (which is probably closer to the norm), then if you were a red state looking at garnering blue influence (or vice versa) then offering them the chance to win some of your EC votes rather than zero even if the state splits 51:49 would have to be some incentive.
__________________
When action grows unprofitable, gather information; when information grows unprofitable, sleepĒ. U.K. Le Guin
  #78  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
As a point of order, well actually more of an emphatic rebuttal, there are more than a few democracies, civilised democracies, long standing stable civilised democracies, who don't use a raw popular election count to determine their head of state, head of government or both.
Can you name any where the loser wins?
  #79  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:30 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
3. Doing so, we conclude that Congressional approval is only required for "the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."
Here are a few compacts that have been approved by Congress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe_...lanning_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat..._of_the_States

If these compacts interfere or encroach on Federal supremacy, I'm not seeing it.

Meanwhile, the NPVIC would substantially alter the power of states outside of the compact, in that their electoral votes (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) would be rendered irrelevant. Every American would cast a vote for President, but it is really only the electoral votes of a fraction of the of states that would actually determine the winner in every subsequent election. Why? To make sure that a candidate who would have won the electoral vote but lose the popular vote does not become president.

I think the very substantial alteration of power among the states warrants congressional approval, regardless of the findings in that particular case you cited.
  #80  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:33 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,198
Again, this whole discussion is predicated upon the assumption made by the losers in each of the four presidential contests where the elected President received less than a plurality of the votes (ignoring 1824, where six states didn't even have voting), that there is something inherently "wrong" with that type of outcome. The main argument offered for this assertion is an inherently emotional one: it doesn't feel like real democracy when this happens.

IF you truly feel this is the case, then you really should put your money (so to speak) where your mouth is. If California has 55% of its individual votes cast for Candidate A, and 44% for Candidate B (with the other 1% cast for third-party and/or write-in candidates), and you truly believe in the idea that voters should not be disenfranchised in the national result simply for being on the wrong side locally, then you should be in favor of apportioning California's electoral votes on a close to 55% to 45% basis. If you don't want to do that, then your desire to have EVERYONE join in a compact to do it means you are simply searching for a way that your guy can win under circumstances similar to 2000 and 2016.

Now here's the real trouble with the proposal: what does the mass of states in the "compact" do when either a state, or an elector, becomes faithless, and ignores the requirements of the "compact"? What enforcement mechanism do you propose will apply? I foresee very little that could be done in that instance to enforce the purported compact.
__________________
"Don't call me Tevildo, Prince of Cats. I HATE that."

-- Sauron, in his blog
  #81  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:35 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Can you name any where the loser wins?
This begs the question, as I'm sure you know, but insist upon ignoring.

By denominating the person who obtains fewer votes nationwide as the "loser", you ignore the fact that there is no nationwide contest. Thus, the person is not the "loser".
__________________
"Don't call me Tevildo, Prince of Cats. I HATE that."

-- Sauron, in his blog
  #82  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,768
Quote:
Quoth Ravenman:

Meanwhile, the NPVIC would substantially alter the power of states outside of the compact, in that their electoral votes (which are guaranteed by the Constitution) would be rendered irrelevant.
No state's electoral votes would be rendered irrelevant by the NPVIC. If the NPVIC were implemented, then it would be the case that some states' EVs would be irrelevant, but that's because those states' EVs are already irrelevant. The problem is with the Electoral Vote system itself, not with the compact.
  #83  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:46 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Can you name any where the loser wins?
Not that I can think of. Did you have any in mind?
  #84  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:50 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
If California has 55% of its individual votes cast for Candidate A, and 44% for Candidate B (with the other 1% cast for third-party and/or write-in candidates), and you truly believe in the idea that voters should not be disenfranchised in the national result simply for being on the wrong side locally, then you should be in favor of apportioning California's electoral votes on a close to 55% to 45% basis.
Nonsense. That would only weaken California's influence from it's already dismal state.

The only way it makes any sense at all is all-or-nothing. The intermediate steps are worse than either of the endpoints.

This is just basic game theory--not too far off from the Prisoner's Dilemma, in fact, where neither one has any interest in cooperating alone but if both can agree they end up better off. The solution to the dilemma is to close off the partial solutions.
  #85  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:53 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Not that I can think of. Did you have any in mind?
I wasn't asking you.
  #86  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:55 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
By denominating the person who obtains fewer votes nationwide as the "loser", you ignore the fact that there is no nationwide contest. Thus, the person is not the "loser".
All you're doing is pointing out another anachronism that the First World does not share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Again, this whole discussion is predicated upon the assumption made by the losers in each of the four presidential contests where the elected President received less than a plurality of the votes (ignoring 1824, where six states didn't even have voting), that there is something inherently "wrong" with that type of outcome. The main argument offered for this assertion is an inherently emotional one: it doesn't feel like real democracy when this happens.
Please. It doesn't feel like democracy because it fucking isn't.

If you don't consider Democracy Is Good to be a fundamental principle, you're really not serving much use in this discussion. If you'd rather be a subject than a citizen, there are numerous options open to you.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-03-2018 at 06:57 PM.
  #87  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:55 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Nonsense. That would only weaken California's influence from it's already dismal state.

The only way it makes any sense at all is all-or-nothing. The intermediate steps are worse than either of the endpoints.

This is just basic game theory--not too far off from the Prisoner's Dilemma, in fact, where neither one has any interest in cooperating alone but if both can agree they end up better off. The solution to the dilemma is to close off the partial solutions.
I agree. There is no hypocrisy in staying with the current system if you would be the only one to change. If you goal is to eventually change the whole system, a partial change for CA alone would make the larger change more difficult.
  #88  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:57 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I wasn't asking you.
And I don't care. You don't get to pick who answers your questions in this forum.
  #89  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:58 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
No state's electoral votes would be rendered irrelevant by the NPVIC. If the NPVIC were implemented, then it would be the case that some states' EVs would be irrelevant, but that's because those states' EVs are already irrelevant. The problem is with the Electoral Vote system itself, not with the compact.
Yes, and because the intention is to make impossible the situation where there is one winner of he popular vote and a different winner of the electoral college, it is by definition altering the power among states.

We know this because the fundamental problem with the electoral college is that it overvalues votes in small state and undervalues votes in large states. Let me be clear: this imbalance should be corrected. But in correcting it, it is a stone-cold fact that we would be altering the power among states. For a good reason, sure, but the power balance is being changed.

Iím contending that since the power balance is being changed, one cannot argue that the compact is, more or less, so insignificant that Congress can just ignore the issue.
  #90  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:58 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
In my experience, a SCOTUS case rarely rests simply on how the current justices interpret one sentence in a 120-year-old case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I understood the point; I just think it's absurdly simplistic. If this ever comes into play, there will be dozens of lawsuits with the highest priced lawyers you can imagine. They will bring up every legal concept, new and old, that they can think of. And this is not a "small agreement". It will have been the mother of all agreements, to borrow a phrase.
I don't really understand this response. The question was: why doesn't Article 1, section 10 do all the work here?

And the answer is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the provision not to apply to all compacts and agreements. And that isn't really an issue of one sentence, it's the point of the whole discussion.

And it's also rather obviously correct, for the reasons the Court says. The provision can't really mean that every time Virginia wants to buy surplus office supplies from Maryland, it needs congressional approval. So what types of agreements are we talking about? The Court proposed one answer.

You're right, of course, that there will be lawsuits (with high priced lawyers!), but I'd be willing to wager heavily that the core proposition of the 120-year old case won't change (i.e., that "agreements" doesn't mean all agreements). I'd even wager heavily that the rule set forth therein won't change.

None of that answers the question of whether or not the NPVIC is constitutional. Is it the type of agreement that falls within the provision? Reasonable minds can disagree. But it remains that case, that spelling out the words in of Article 1, section 10 doesn't get you an answer, both under the law of the United States as it presently exists and under common sense. I don't think that's a "simplistic" point at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Here are a few compacts that have been approved by Congress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe_...lanning_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat..._of_the_States

If these compacts interfere or encroach on Federal supremacy, I'm not seeing it.

I think the very substantial alteration of power among the states warrants congressional approval, regardless of the findings in that particular case you cited.
Note first that the boundary in Tennessee v. Virginia was approved by Congress. So the fact that something is approved doesn't mean that it needs to be approved. For example, here is a Pennsylvania case concluding that the Driver License Compact doesn't require approval and noting that "the fact that Congress enacted legislation approving compacts of this sort does not mandate the conclusion that such approval was constitutionally necessary." I'm ambivalent on TRPA (because of the federal regulatory issues and the fact that the President gets to appoint a member of the agency), but I could be persuaded.

But I'm not arguing that the NPVIC is constitutional under the relevant authority. (In truth, I think I agree with you). My only point is that the fact that two (or more) states enter into an agreement hasn't been viewed as necessarily within the ambit of Article 1. I'm simply answering the question "What explanation is needed beyond quoting Article 1, section 10?"
  #91  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:00 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
What would you have Congress do to stop it? What can they do within the confines of the Constitution?

Those of you spluttering about unconstitutionality need an answer for that.
  #92  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:01 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
And I don't care. You don't get to pick who answers your questions in this forum.
Which is why I'm not bothering with yours. See how this works yet?
  #93  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:04 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Can you name any where the loser wins?
Yes, all the parliamentary systems can.
The Australian system has on at least 3 occasions given the prime ministership to the leader of the party which didn't win the popular vote (either on primary or two-party preferred basis). Not that the popular vote has any relevance to the determination of PM.

There are examples of straight popular elections where the guy who got the most votes ended up in chockey, exile or shot, so I reckon history will say they lost.

[notworthy]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
This begs the question, as I'm sure you know, but insist upon ignoring.

By denominating the person who obtains fewer votes nationwide as the "loser", you ignore the fact that there is no nationwide contest. Thus, the person is not the "loser".
[/notworthy]
__________________
When action grows unprofitable, gather information; when information grows unprofitable, sleepĒ. U.K. Le Guin
  #94  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:04 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Which is why I'm not bothering with yours. See how this works yet?
Yes, I see exactly how it works when you're unable to answer.
  #95  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:06 PM
Dr. Strangelove's Avatar
Dr. Strangelove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
We know this because the fundamental problem with the electoral college is that it overvalues votes in small state and undervalues votes in large states.
That's one of a few fundamental problems. Another is that it encourages states to apportion their EVs on an all-or-nothing basis, which means that candidates ignore non-swing states. Another is that it's quantized, so even if they wanted to, states could not apportion their votes proportionally.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about Congress, but suppose a state just threw up their hands and said elections are too expensive; we'll just give our votes to whoever state X selects. No compact or anything needed, just one state picking a (weird) means of apportioning their EVs. It's a transfer of power in the same way as the NPVIC, but it also doesn't seem like something that would require Congressional involvement.
  #96  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Yes, I see exactly how it works when you're unable to answer.
Here's a pat on the head. Run along now, lad.
  #97  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:12 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
The Australian system has on at least 3 occasions given the prime ministership to the leader of the party which didn't win the popular vote (either on primary or two-party preferred basis).
Got it. But that's only when no party won an outright majority in Commons, right? Yes, funny things can happen in coalition negotiations, but that doesn't mean the loser won. Are there countries you can point to where the head of government is directly elected, and can still win despite losing?
  #98  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:14 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,768
Personally, I think that the NPVIC probably would require Congressional approval... but I also don't think that would be all that big of a deal. Presumably, the legislators from the states that have passed the Compact would be on board with their states' plans, which would already get us most of the way towards approval. It's an additional requirement, true, but it's one highly correlated with the requirement we're already dealing with.

EDIT:

Oh, and it would be possible, in a parliamentary system, for one party to receive over 50% of the popular vote, but for another party to end up controlling over 50% of the seats and hence the government, for much the same reasons that the equivalent is possible under our system. I don't know if it's ever actually happened, but if it hasn't, it's mostly just because parliamentary systems tend to have many parties, and hence it's uncommon for a single party to get over 50% of anything.

Last edited by Chronos; 01-03-2018 at 07:17 PM.
  #99  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:19 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What would you have Congress do to stop it? What can they do within the confines of the Constitution?

Those of you spluttering about unconstitutionality need an answer for that.
Actually, you need an answer for why this scheme has any chance of surviving the compact clause. If states spend all this time enacting this compact, and it a court throws it out, we have a potentially very fucked up presidential election on our hands, with the chance that two people have equal claims to the presidency. That isnít a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
I don't necessarily disagree with you about Congress, but suppose a state just threw up their hands and said elections are too expensive; we'll just give our votes to whoever state X selects. No compact or anything needed, just one state picking a (weird) means of apportioning their EVs. It's a transfer of power in the same way as the NPVIC, but it also doesn't seem like something that would require Congressional involvement.
I donít see how a state deciding that itís EVs in an arbitrary, non-democratic manner affects the powers of other states. Itís a matter of the residents of that state losing the franchise.
  #100  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:20 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It should be noted that in the last election, neither Trump nor Clinton won the (meaningless) "popular vote".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Personally, I think that the NPVIC probably would require Congressional approval... but I also don't think that would be all that big of a deal. Presumably, the legislators from the states that have passed the Compact would be on board with their states' plans, which would already get us most of the way towards approval. It's an additional requirement, true, but it's one highly correlated with the requirement we're already dealing with.
I think the more plausible scenario, since more states would not be in agreement with it, is that Congress could take action to disapprove and then let the states that want it take it to the SCOTUS and see what happens.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017