Quote from: redbeard on February 09, 2014, 03:40:41 PM
Even if he did and he lost, I would be against changing a fundamental structure put in place by our founders!

I am against it too! I do NOT want to change the electoral college.

My question is entirely limited to the legal merits of the NPVIC

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:36:58 PM
You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?

Which is a moot point, considering he lost.
Why do you think the left screwed Ca with this nonsense, when 85% of the state is geographically Conservative?
Think about that for a moment...

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:42:10 PM
I am against it too! I do NOT want to change the electoral college.

My question is entirely limited to the legal merits of the NPVIC

Liberals, and legal....Really?

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 06:07:16 PM
Which is a moot point, considering he lost.
Why do you think the left screwed Ca with this nonsense, when 85% of the state is geographically Conservative?
Think about that for a moment...

I'm sorry.. geographically Conservative? As in, more square feet of Conservatism?

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 06:42:26 PM
I'm sorry.. geographically Conservative? As in, more square feet of Conservatism?

And this boy is in college.   

Quote from: walkstall on February 09, 2014, 07:02:21 PM

And this boy is in college.   

He seems to be suggesting that the fact that a larger geographic percentage of California votes Conservative is relevant. It's not. MANY, MANY, MANY more people live on the coast.

Quote from: walkstall on February 09, 2014, 07:02:21 PM

And this boy is in college.   

https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924&section=45688

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 09, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
https://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45924&section=45688

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 07:13:08 PM
He seems to be suggesting that the fact that a larger geographic percentage of California votes Conservative is relevant. It's not. MANY, MANY, MANY more people live on the coast.

Excuse my bluntness. But you're a Dumb Ass! Ever heard of Gerrymandering?
That's why this electoral College is so important, the Marxists have stolen the voice of the majority of the state!

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Excuse my bluntness. But you're a Dumb Ass! Ever heard of Gerrymandering?
That's why this electoral College is so important, the Marxists have stolen the voice of the majority of the state!

Excuse my bluntness. But people who put up a county-level election map and say "OMG look how much more of the country is red! The dumbocrats stole deh election!!" make me physically ill.

And you do realize that Gerrymandering 1) has NOTHING to do with Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or any other statewide elections, and 2) has GREATLY helped Republicans in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, right?

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 10, 2014, 04:13:21 AM
Excuse my bluntness. But people who put up a county-level election map and say "OMG look how much more of the country is red! The dumbocrats stole deh election!!" make me physically ill.

And you do realize that Gerrymandering 1) has NOTHING to do with Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or any other statewide elections, and 2)

Has what to do with anything I said, where??

Quotehas GREATLY helped Republicans in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, right?

So now you're at the core of why you started this thread. It had nothing to do with your curiosity on the subject, that was a lie, because here you are defending it.

You are probably one of the shallowest most transparent shills to ever grace these halls.

Quote from: Solar on February 10, 2014, 05:58:57 AM
Has what to do with anything I said, where??
So now you're at the core of why you started this thread. It had nothing to do with your curiosity on the subject, that was a lie, because here you are defending it.

You are probably one of the shallowest most transparent shills to ever grace these halls.

*SIGH*

Who brought up gerrymandering? YOU DID.

I AM NOT defending either the NPVIC or gerrymandering, and no fair-minded, critical-thinking reader of this forum will believe that I am. I am refuting your assertion that the electoral college is important because it prevents gerrymandering to benefit Marxists.

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 12:51:38 PM
2) Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "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." The counterargument is that the NPVIC is, inherently, an agreement/compact, and unless it is approved by Congress, it is unconstitutional.

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,... enter into any agreement or compact with another state...."

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

"Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

"The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta."

Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

"Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to 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."

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...."

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

"The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"

The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states' action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:

"the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government."

The Court also noted that the compact did not

"authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence."

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 10, 2014, 06:41:57 AM
*SIGH*

Who brought up gerrymandering? YOU DID.

I AM NOT defending either the NPVIC or gerrymandering, and no fair-minded, critical-thinking reader of this forum will believe that I am. I am refuting your assertion that the electoral college is important because it prevents gerrymandering to benefit Marxists.

Which is it, obfuscation, denial, or simply outright lying?

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.  Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC. 

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.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

BTW . . .  With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!