National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

[Vepres]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

[muon2]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

In a right world, any State should be willing to "give" his electors to the candidate the people has chosen.

[muon2]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

In a right world, any State should be willing to "give" his electors to the candidate the people has chosen.

No, the notion of electors is akin to delegates at a convention or members within a parliament. People elect those delegates from individual constituencies to represent themselves, not to represent the whole of the public outside the constituency. A delegate at a nominating convention is there to vote for the candidate supported by a majority in the district - particularly on the first ballot. A parliamentary member would be expected to not vote for another party's prime minister, even though a majority of the nation supported that other party.

My point is that even if the legislature has determined that they want to select electors based on the popular vote, many in the public will feel cheated if they didn't get to see their electors reflect the will of the public in their state. I would anticipate that this feeling would be stronger when a candidate is from that state.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

[muon2]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

And my answer remains that a directly elected president should come with a majority vote requirement and a runoff of the top two in case of no majority. Either the system is modeled on delegate selection like the current EC, or it should be a true majority vote system like France. I find the NPVIC to be the worst of both worlds.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Maybe, but the Presidential election isn't a legislative election. The Electoral College isn't a permanent body with legislative power, it's made simply for the sake of electing the President. And I don't see why the people shouldn't be able to choose its president directly. The reason given by founding fathers made sense at the time, as the people probably wasn't mature enough for direct democracy, and electors could be a mitigating factor. But now, there aren't anymore : they simply reflect the will of the people in their State. Or more exactly they unexactly represent the will of a more or less great plurality of the voters of each State. What's the point of that ?

And my answer remains that a directly elected president should come with a majority vote requirement and a runoff of the top two in case of no majority. Either the system is modeled on delegate selection like the current EC, or it should be a true majority vote system like France. I find the NPVIC to be the worst of both worlds.

NPVIC is inperfect, but still a progress compared to the current electoral college. But once it will be passed, I'd not be surprised than after a couple of decades an Amendment establishing national popular vote will be ratified, probably with a runoff provision.

[Nichlemn]

Mass becomes the 6th state to join this unconstitutional compact, the 6 states account for 73 of the 270 EV needed to bring the compact into force.

I wonder how they would feel about their electors going to a President-elect Palin

I've long thought the same thing, but applied to a situation where Obama might lose in 2012. Would IL really be willing to see its electors go against the favorite son?

In a right world, any State should be willing to "give" his electors to the candidate the people has chosen.

No, the notion of electors is akin to delegates at a convention or members within a parliament. People elect those delegates from individual constituencies to represent themselves, not to represent the whole of the public outside the constituency. A delegate at a nominating convention is there to vote for the candidate supported by a majority in the district - particularly on the first ballot. A parliamentary member would be expected to not vote for another party's prime minister, even though a majority of the nation supported that other party.

My point is that even if the legislature has determined that they want to select electors based on the popular vote, many in the public will feel cheated if they didn't get to see their electors reflect the will of the public in their state. I would anticipate that this feeling would be stronger when a candidate is from that state.

Well, this would need to solved with education. If the NPVIC comes into effect, then electoral votes are purely symbolic.

[zorkpolitics]

There is a fair amount of speculation that an Obama-Palin contest in 2012 would encourage Bloomberg to jump in and spend a billion or two.  Bloomberg could possibly win several states perhaps NY, NJ, CT, FL, and/or CA. This might result in no candidate getting 270 EV which, under the 12th amendment, would then send the election to the House.  However, if the National Popular Vote Compact had passed, then the 12th amendment would never come into play.  Thus this multi-state law would render a Constitutional Amendment null and void.
States can not avoid the Constitution by joint laws, hence it would seem the National Popular Vote Compact would be quickly judged unconstitutional.

[I left.]

There is a fair amount of speculation that an Obama-Palin contest in 2012 would encourage Bloomberg to jump in and spend a billion or two.  Bloomberg could possibly win several states perhaps NY, NJ, CT, FL, and/or CA. This might result in no candidate getting 270 EV which, under the 12th amendment, would then send the election to the House.  However, if the National Popular Vote Compact had passed, then the 12th amendment would never come into play.  Thus this multi-state law would render a Constitutional Amendment null and void.
States can not avoid the Constitution by joint laws, hence it would seem the National Popular Vote Compact would be quickly judged unconstitutional.

So much stupidity in one post...

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Since you bother posting the same thing twice, I will too.

That's a totally fallacious argument. If passed, the NPVIC would de facto nullify the 12th Amendment, but absolutely nothing in the NPVIC is explicitely contrary to the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amentment never states that there must be cases where its provision applies. Imagine the constitution says "any flying pig shall have its wings cut". If you interpret it the same way you interpret the 12th Amendment, it would imply "flying pigs shall exist".