Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Suffers Setback

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Suffers Setback

    Source: Fox News



    In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Translation: states cannot tell electors how to vote. With no legal binding, electors can vote for their party's candidate instead of the candidate specified by the state.

    And yeah, it affects winner take all states (48) - or would if it were the Supreme Court instead of a District Court. As it stands, it affects the Southwest.

    Not likely to go to the Court this year - but it mucks up efforts to award all votes to the nationally popular candidate.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

  • #2
    I don't like the result of the ruling; not because of anything to with the compact, but because it stops states from doing anything about faithless electors (which I don't think are good for the process).
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      I don't like the result of the ruling; not because of anything to with the compact, but because it stops states from doing anything about faithless electors (which I don't think are good for the process).
      I'm more wondering if, under this ruling's logic, states even have the right to be 'winner take all'.

      Faithless electors have not yet been a factor in any outcome - granted, it could happen but it's so unlikely that I'm not sure it matters.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #4
        'we are not democracy, but democratic republic!!!! we have representatives!!!, cos rule of mob bad!'. Then 'why is there 'faithless electors???'

        Either representatives just puppets of 'rule of mob', or no 'rule of mob' and they can vote how they want.
        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

        Comment


        • #5
          The ruling seems to be in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. In that case, there is no such thing as "faithless" in the commonly understood sense. The Electors were not intended to be mindless avatars helplessly carrying out the *will* of the people, they were supposed to be Better and Smarter than the Great Unwashed, and would act according to their own view of the *best interests* of the people.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Source: Fox News



            In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Translation: states cannot tell electors how to vote. With no legal binding, electors can vote for their party's candidate instead of the candidate specified by the state.

            And yeah, it affects winner take all states (48) - or would if it were the Supreme Court instead of a District Court. As it stands, it affects the Southwest.

            Not likely to go to the Court this year - but it mucks up efforts to award all votes to the nationally popular candidate.
            Well then states can't make their electors follow their state popular vote either.

            Or to put it another way, they can use the same system to get their electors to follow the country's popular vote as they now do to get them to follow their state's popular vote. Get them to swear to doing so under oath. It's not a 100% guarantee but that is the way it works now.

            Comment


            • #7
              It was always a scheme to ignore the will of voters in an individual state if they happened to vote contrary to the rest of the country.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                It was always a scheme to ignore the will of voters in an individual state if they happened to vote contrary to the rest of the country.
                Yup. And if my state did that, I think the voters would be in an uproar and the idjuts who legislated such a thing would be out on their ears come next election, or there might even be some lynchings.

                I think they actually should change the law to say that the electors have to vote the popular vote in their state. Otherwise you have idiotic schemes like this coming up, or you could end up with electors conspiring to go against the popular vote of the state and the country. They could have conceivably all voted for Jill Stein and it would have been legal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Or go back to the way it used to be where electors were selected by the state governments. At least then we might get away from idiots voting for the guy who promises the most free stuff.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    The ruling seems to be in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution. In that case, there is no such thing as "faithless" in the commonly understood sense. The Electors were not intended to be mindless avatars helplessly carrying out the *will* of the people, they were supposed to be Better and Smarter than the Great Unwashed, and would act according to their own view of the *best interests* of the people.
                    Exactly point of demi's.

                    People want democracy when suits them, but democratic republic when not suiting them. Want to have cake and eat it.
                    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Well then states can't make their electors follow their state popular vote either.

                      Or to put it another way, they can use the same system to get their electors to follow the country's popular vote as they now do to get them to follow their state's popular vote. Get them to swear to doing so under oath. It's not a 100% guarantee but that is the way it works now.
                      That's what I said! IF it is upheld, it could destroy the present winner take all system in 48 states.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        I think they actually should change the law to say that the electors have to vote the popular vote in their state. Otherwise you have idiotic schemes like this coming up, or you could end up with electors conspiring to go against the popular vote of the state and the country. They could have conceivably all voted for Jill Stein and it would have been legal.
                        But according to the ruling, you can't change the law to that; that was the whole point of the ruling, it was saying that a state cannot by law bind an elector to the vote. One an elector is chosen, they can choose to vote for whoever they want no matter what the state, people, or anyone else wants.

                        Despite the way the article frames it, this no more shuts down the interstate commerce pact than it does winner-takes-all, proportional, or anything else. States can still choose the electors based on any of those frameworks, they just cannot by law require them to vote in any particular way--in other words, the judicial decision struck down the very thing you propose here. Yes, they could have all voted for Jill Stein if they wanted--that's the point, that states cannot by law require them to vote for any particular person.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yup. And if my state did that, I think the voters would be in an uproar and the idjuts who legislated such a thing would be out on their ears come next election, or there might even be some lynchings.

                          I think they actually should change the law to say that the electors have to vote the popular vote in their state. Otherwise you have idiotic schemes like this coming up, or you could end up with electors conspiring to go against the popular vote of the state and the country. They could have conceivably all voted for Jill Stein and it would have been legal.
                          I'm not sure that would be Constitutional. Article 2 and Amendment XII (IIRC) deal with selection of Electors. I suppose the wording might technically allow that part of the "manner of choosing" the electors would be requiring them to commit to voting in a particular way, but that seems a stretch, and definitely seems to run counter to the intent.

                          I despise all such attempts to tap-dance around the Constitution, whether by Left or Right. If you don't like what it says, have the stones to try to amend it.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            I despise all such attempts to tap-dance around the Constitution, whether by Left or Right. If you don't like what it says, have the stones to try to amend it.
                            It seems clear that the intention of the founding patriarchs was not to have the popular vote win just because it's the popular vote. That's the whole point of having a representative with any power whatsoever.

                            Leftists can cheerfully oppose this with no qualms. Conservatives find it harder. They, like the founders, really like to posture as democratic because they truly believe in 'power to the people', but at other times will decry it as 'mob rule' when it doesn't suit them or when it is obviously insane. They're stuck because they want to have their cake and eat it, to have democracy and not-democracy at the same time. 'Democratic republic' is the compromise between the two main choices, but there is no satisfactory principled way to balance the two.
                            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            160 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            400 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            379 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X