Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:36 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
They might do what they do now, but they don't have to. That is the point you keep missing. It is, as septum said, a minor point, but I don't think it's so unlikely as to be unthinkable. Still, compared to the whopping error about the 14th amendment, that is a minor error.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-15-2018 at 09:36 AM.
  #302  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:36 AM
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
They might do what they do now, but they don't have to. That is the point you keep missing.
I've been extremely patient with you in pointing out that the Constitution explicitly leaves the choice of electors to the states, so kindly don't tell me I'm missing that, or any, point. 'Kay?

Yes, without the Compact in effect, current state laws come back into play. They all call for popular vote within the state to decide electors. That's Civics 101.

Quote:
Still, compared to the whopping error about the 14th amendment, that is a minor error.
Already explained multiple times. Rules governing voting only have effect if you have voting. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
  #303  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:40 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The context there is all about military and diplomatic alliances, forbidding them outside the structure of the federal government, which would be essentially meaningless if they were permitted. So no.
“Military and diplomatic alliances?” Where are you getting this nonsense?

Interstate compacts are virtually always about some type of commercial, licensing, emergency response, environmental, or similar issues. That has jack-all to do with militaries and alliances.
  #304  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:44 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
“Military and diplomatic alliances?” Where are you getting this nonsense?
The Constitution is nonsense? "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."

We've been over this.
  #305  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:31 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've been extremely patient with you in pointing out that the Constitution explicitly leaves the choice of electors to the states, so kindly don't tell me I'm missing that, or any, point. 'Kay?
Except that isn't the point, as both septimus and I told you.

Quote:
Yes, without the Compact in effect, current state laws come back into play.
No, the compact does not have a "not in effect" clause. If it does, why don't you point that out to us? It has a clause saying when the compact does come into effect, but states have to voluntarily opt out. There is nothing that says the compact becomes automatically null and void if states exit such that the number of electors drops below 50%. There is no "civics 101" about this. The law simply doesn't say what you are claiming it does.

Quote:
Already explained multiple times. Rules governing voting only have effect if you have voting. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
And yet the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Call me crazy, but I'm going to believe the ruling of the SCOTUS over some anonymous guy on a MB.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-15-2018 at 01:31 PM.
  #306  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:54 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
Except that isn't the point, as both septimus and I told you.
Then you're both mistaken.

Quote:
No, the compact does not have a "not in effect" clause.
You've finally read a link, have you?

A happens when Condition B is met. If Condition B is not met, then A does not happen. Okay?

Quote:
And yet the SCOTUS disagrees with you.
I really don't know how to make this any clearer for you, but here: There are constitutional rights and laws that govern how voting is done, if and only if you have voting.

There is no federal right to vote as such, and no, the Supreme Court has never ruled that there is one, dicta notwithstanding. There isn't even a state constitutional right to vote as such except in Colorado. The institution of popular voting for President as such exists by statute only, believe it or not.

New statutes override old ones. Any state that has passed the Compact has passed a new statute. QED.

Your turn, and let's hope for something more than "Nuh-uh!".
  #307  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:16 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The Constitution is nonsense? "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."

We've been over this.
Yeah, and I believe you still don’t have any idea what the provision means, or how it has been applied for centuries. I’m questioning where you get your information. Is someone misinforming you? Or are you coming up with definitions on your own?
  #308  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:49 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
Then you're both mistaken.
Since septimus was the one who asked the question, I think he knows what the point was.

Quote:
You've finally read a link, have you?

A happens when Condition B is met. If Condition B is not met, then A does not happen. Okay?
I'm not asking you to explain what you think it means. I'm asking you to quote the part that you are claiming means that. The part that says the compact stops being in effect when the EV total falls below 50% after it has already been greater then 50%. You can't quote that part, because it isn't there.

Quote:
I really don't know how to make this any clearer for you, but here: There are constitutional rights and laws that govern how voting is done, if and only if you have voting.

There is no federal right to vote as such, and no, the Supreme Court has never ruled that there is one, dicta notwithstanding. There isn't even a state constitutional right to vote as such except in Colorado. The institution of popular voting for President as such exists by statute only, believe it or not.

New statutes override old ones. Any state that has passed the Compact has passed a new statute. QED.

Your turn, and let's hope for something more than "Nuh-uh!".
You've been quite good at making clear something that no one other than you is talking about-- a federal right to vote. What that has to do with the discussion in this thread is what is unclear. So let me make it clear, once again. No one, other than you, is talking about a federal right to vote. We're talking about things like the 14th amendment, and the SCOTUS opinion that states it is a constraint on Art II sec 1 of the US constitution.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-15-2018 at 02:51 PM.
  #309  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:22 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,856
Bumped.

Here's Five Thirty Eight on Colorado's likely passage of the NPVIC, and the road ahead: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...jor-milestone/
  #310  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:07 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Bumped.

Here's Five Thirty Eight on Colorado's likely passage of the NPVIC, and the road ahead: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...jor-milestone/
Those last 51 Electoral Votes (assuming another 38 actually join the compact as Nate's reporters speculate) will be really tough to procure. In no small part because the election industry in swing states is a fairly substantial financial windfall (that the election industry has become big and influential enough to drive the conversation is another problem in and of itself).

I'm mostly hoping that the compact is another factor in the drive to get Republicans to the table and negotiate electoral reform in good faith. I'm specifically talking about ending first past the post voting and implementing some method of proportional representation. This will be a long haul but our newest voters are much more receptive to these ideas than older voters.
  #311  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:52 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Bumped.

Here's Five Thirty Eight on Colorado's likely passage of the NPVIC, and the road ahead: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...jor-milestone/
That was a very strange article...at first it says that this is BIG NEWS! because Colorado is a PURPLE STATE! and this may lead to a wave of PURPLE STATES approving the compact--

only then it points out, almost as an aside, that Colorado has a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature. Which kind of reduces the impact of being a purple state--what it's really saying is that if purple states turn Dem, then the compact has a chance. Which really isn't saying much. Oh well!
  #312  
Old 04-03-2019, 09:34 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,856
NPVIC may be on the Ohio ballot this fall, the state legislature having not taken action: https://www.dispatch.com/news/201904...cle18-readmore
  #313  
Old 04-03-2019, 12:20 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
Delaware and its three (3!) EVs signed it into state law this week. Up to 184 now.
  #314  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:39 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
NPVIC may be on the Ohio ballot this fall, the state legislature having not taken action: https://www.dispatch.com/news/201904...cle18-readmore
I'll vote for it if it makes it onto the ballot, but it seems even more tenuous than the normal NPVIC given that there's probably now a majority on the Supreme Court for striking down all voter-initiated federal election reforms. But maybe John Roberts will value precedent over the words of his own dissent (*hollow laugh*).

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-04-2019 at 12:41 AM.
  #315  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:59 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Those last 51 Electoral Votes (assuming another 38 actually join the compact as Nate's reporters speculate) will be really tough to procure. In no small part because the election industry in swing states is a fairly substantial financial windfall (that the election industry has become big and influential enough to drive the conversation is another problem in and of itself).
Beyond the economic influence of election spending, there is the loss of political influence in Presidential elections. States like FL and PA which are absolutely critical now will just become one of several large states. Why would they choose to reduce their political influence ?

Then there are the likely court challenges. And presumably it is possible for purple states which turn red in the future to exit the compact, creating a whole lot of uncertainty.

Overall I doubt the EC is getting abolished any time in the next few decades. The only chance of that happening is if a Republican candidate or two loses the electoral college and wins the popular vote.
  #316  
Old 04-04-2019, 07:08 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Beyond the economic influence of election spending, there is the loss of political influence in Presidential elections. States like FL and PA which are absolutely critical now will just become one of several large states. Why would they choose to reduce their political influence ?

Then there are the likely court challenges. And presumably it is possible for purple states which turn red in the future to exit the compact, creating a whole lot of uncertainty.

Overall I doubt the EC is getting abolished any time in the next few decades. The only chance of that happening is if a Republican candidate or two loses the electoral college and wins the popular vote.
It'll never happen unless an overwhelming majority of us get behind it. We need positive thoughts and actions.
  #317  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:44 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
New Mexico as of yesterday. Count is now 189.
  #318  
Old 04-04-2019, 12:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Which remaining states do you see as your best prospects to get to 270?
  #319  
Old 04-05-2019, 07:53 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which remaining states do you see as your best prospects to get to 270?
I don't know. It's been 12 years getting the first two thirds of the EVs, presumably the easiest to procure. The last 81 may not be procured until tens of millions of new voters -- who appear to be less persuaded by arguments supporting the EC -- come online.
  #320  
Old 04-05-2019, 09:49 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which remaining states do you see as your best prospects to get to 270?
It may never happen. Unless... unless Republicans win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. Then it will happen the next day.
  #321  
Old 04-05-2019, 09:51 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It may never happen. Unless... unless Republicans win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. Then it will happen the next day.
They'll have to hurry because the next day all the Dem states will start repealing.
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 02:35 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