It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, there you go. This is what you get when you give an idiot a sledgehammer. You might as well have a dictatorship as to have a bunch of morons voting for the one they like and the one that promises them the world every time (but never delivers).
Voting was always a stupid idea. It's just that it was slightly better than everything that came before it.
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari
A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.
I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.
That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.
If the majority of the voters in your state vote for someone...
Then their votes are given to the winner of the popular vote and it isn't who they voted for...
We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
Why do people still not understand that simple concept?
/facepalm
originally posted by: Lumenari
We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
It is the United STATES of America.... not America.
Why do people still not understand that simple concept?
/facepalm
originally posted by: sine.nomine
originally posted by: Lumenari
We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy.
It is the United STATES of America.... not America.
Why do people still not understand that simple concept?
/facepalm
This. I've been trying to reiterate this point on this site forever. Nobody gets it. Thank you.
a reply to: Liquesence
Yeah. It's a democratic republic.
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari
A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.
I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.
That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.
originally posted by: Guyfriday
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari
A pretty easy case actually... voter disenfranchisement.
I keep seeing this bogus argument. No one is disenfranchised by popular vote; if anything, if is more inclusive, ensuring that every vote counts in he overall tally, and winner does not take all, which is what the EC does in the majority of states. Unless you mean that in by passing this the EC votes won't count and, therefore, under the current system, all voters of the state will be disenfranchised by their votes not being counted.
That said, I don't see how a state passing this law will hold any weight, when the EC is a constitutional issue, which states' can't very well skirt.
Wrong. Here in Washington State, how ever the city of Seattle votes, the state goes with it. Yep as long as the city of Seattle vote 62% for whatever, everyone in the state has to follow. The city of Seattle voted for water restrictions to save the salmon, farmers on the other side of the state were put under water restriction rules.
So yes under a purely popular vote, most people who are outside of the population centers get zero representation in any votes. Oh and as for this not being Constitutional, well the states will more then likely cry about states rights and Article 17 rights of the state. SO unless this gets handed to the SCoUS election 2020 will be the biggest fraud in American history, and could very well be the end of America (and no, I'm fear mongering)
longer read but SCOTUS will crush it as unconstituional and the above source is a really good read on why it would not fly
Abstract Since the 2000 election “misfire” produced a President who won the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (“the Compact”) has garnered support across the nation. Under the terms of the Compact, the states would thereafter pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome of the election within their own state. The Compact, already successfully approved by eleven states and the District of Columbia, needs its signatories to possess at least 270 electoral votes before it takes full effect and converts the Electoral College into a de facto direct popular election of the President. The current compacting states possess 165 electoral votes, and therefore need only 105 more before the Compact takes effect, a total that can be reached with the consent of as few as four more states. This article argues that this possibility makes the Compact a constitutional crisis–in–waiting. Although this crisis is not yet upon us, it lurks in the shadows and must be addressed before it has the chance to alter a presidential election and take away any and all effective electoral power from as many as thirty–nine states. This article explains that the Compact is unconstitutional because it promotes combination among the states and effectively creates a direct popular election. Because these results are precisely what the Framers deliberately sought to avoid when they carefully detailed the “finely wrought” electoral procedures in Article II, Section 1, the Compact makes an impermissible fundamental alteration to the Electoral College. This Note examines the historical evidence of the Federal Convention, ratification debates, and writings of the Founding era and, in doing so, concludes that the Framers specified these procedures to prevent combination among the states and allow each individual state to vote according to its distinct interests. The Compact would force a state’s electors to disregard their state’s unique interests and, instead, vote for whomever secures a plurality of the national popular vote, regardless of that candidate’s performance in that specific state. To prevent this crisis-in-waiting from occurring, this Note concludes that if states ever attempt to enforce the Compact, a court should apply the “finely wrought” standard from Chadha and City of New York and strike down the deal, thereby preventing supporters of the Compact from passing a de facto constitutional amendment that deprives the non–compacting states of their current political power in presidential elections.
originally posted by: sine.nomine
Voting in a pure democracy is a stupid idea, thus the electoral college to avoid mob rule. These Democrat states are voting for mob rule.
originally posted by: dubiousatworst
The worst part about this is that the President was never meant to be elected based on popular vote. The people meant to be elected based on popular vote are the house and senate.
Anyway, what I'm thinking is this, Koza (or whomever put him up to this) posits the problem to his machine regarding transitioning to a national popular vote rather than an electoral college vote for president but it has to be done in such a way as to avoid the need for a constitutional amendment because they know they'd never get something like this passed through congress.
The machine then spits out this idea for a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a means to achieve the same ends (popular vote assignment of electoral votes) without having to amend the constitution.