Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:45:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16
Author Topic: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College  (Read 157110 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #275 on: April 29, 2011, 08:06:09 AM »

NPV advocacy featured on Bloggingheads:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/35733?in=21:22&out=37:13
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #276 on: May 05, 2011, 12:56:23 AM »

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #277 on: May 05, 2011, 07:36:27 PM »

3 Republicans have introduced it in Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2663o.asp&Session_ID=102
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #278 on: May 05, 2011, 07:41:06 PM »

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #279 on: May 05, 2011, 08:00:41 PM »


Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #280 on: May 06, 2011, 10:25:05 AM »


Yes, but the Arizona legislature has since adjourned for the year.  So this isn't going to be taken up there until 2012.


I'm putting watching it on my calendar for next year. Smiley
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,533
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #281 on: May 06, 2011, 04:50:40 PM »

In Tennessee, a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the Senate and a Republican has introduced the NPVIC into the House:

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1024

Why are Republican legislators in Republican states taking up this issue?

Perhaps because they are tired of their states being ignored by presidential candidates and want some piece of the action.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #282 on: May 10, 2011, 05:23:28 PM »
« Edited: May 10, 2011, 06:09:09 PM by beneficii »

In New York, the NPVIC is ready for a floor vote in both houses.  In the Republican-controlled Senate, the bill was introduced by a Republican and passed the Elections committee unanimously--which, presumably, is Republican-controlled.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00489&term=2011

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4208-2011

EDIT: Indeed, the Elections committee is Republican-controlled.  O'Mara, Gallivan, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, and Ball are Republicans, while the remaining 3 are Democrats.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #283 on: May 10, 2011, 06:42:05 PM »

This gives a good summary of what is going on on the ground in Louisiana:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110508/NEWS01/105080313/Movement-seeks-elect-U-S-president-by-popular-vote

The NPVIC is unlikely to pass there this legislature, as the state Republican Party opposes the measure, and the Republicans control both Houses and the governorship, but note how 3 Republicans still came together to introduce the bill in the House and a majority of the state's population, including a majority of state Republicans, support the idea of a national popular vote.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #284 on: May 12, 2011, 01:06:50 AM »
« Edited: May 12, 2011, 01:11:14 AM by beneficii »

I spoke with the office of New York State Rep. Dinowitz, who sponsored the bill, and the person there said with the Assembly adjourning yesterday, the bill is effectively dead.  The person also said it's unlikely any action on the matter would be taken by the Republican-controlled Senate next Legislature, despite the bill having a lot of Republican crossover votes this year.

It looks like New York will not become part of the compact anytime soon.


Which doesn't surprise me in the least.  A fair number of those crossover votes were likely made to avoid making waves on a bill that wasn't see as likely passing the other house.

For New York, I called the offices of Senator Griffo, the Republican who introduced the NPVIC into the Republican-controlled State Senate this year, and Assemblyman Dinowitz, a Democrat who has repeatedly introduced the NPVIC in the Assembly.  The person answering the phones for Griffo says that they're hoping to get a floor vote by the end of June, and they have a meeting with the leadership next week to discuss getting the bill a floor vote--the bill is already on the third reading calendar.  He also said that there isn't really any opposition from the leadership to the NPVIC in the Senate; it passed the Elections committee with no objections.  I told him that New York Republicans must hate being ignored in presidential elections, and he agreed.

Dinowitz's person answering the phones didn't seem as optimistic.  He said that they're hoping to get a floor vote this legislature.  I asked him if he's seen any opposition from the leadership, and he said he doesn't know if the leadership is opposed.

So it would be pretty funny if the NPVIC passes the Republican-controlled Senate but fails to pass the Democratic-controlled House.

EDIT: It took only 20 seconds for the NPVIC to report out of the Senate Elections committee when it came under consideration.  Shortly after 6:30 in the following video the consideration for the NPVIC, and by the time the video gets to 7:00 the committee had already unanimously agreed to report the bill to the floor:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/may/02/elections-meeting
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,533
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #285 on: May 25, 2011, 09:30:41 AM »

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #286 on: May 27, 2011, 03:55:44 PM »

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,533
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #287 on: May 27, 2011, 06:27:19 PM »

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #288 on: May 27, 2011, 06:45:34 PM »

The Louisiana House committee passed unanimously the NPV bill. It goes to the House floor now.

It's scheduled for a floor debate on 6/6 according to the status page.  It's nice to get an up or down vote on it, but honestly I don't expect it to pass.  It'll be an interesting show to watch regardless.

How can it pass unanimously the committee and then be rejected by the full body?

My understanding is that 6 of 14 members wanted to defer the bill, that is basically kill it, but that failed.  After that, the committee voted unanimously to let it go to the floor.  Those 6 members were probably opposed and only allowed it to go to the floor when because of the vote they saw they couldn't kill it right there.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #289 on: June 06, 2011, 03:08:29 PM »

The bill appears to be dead now in the Louisiana House.  According to the status page on the bill, it was "[r]ead by title, returned to the calendar."  According to page 28 of the Louisiana Legislative Floor Guide (which can be found on the House's website), that means the bill is "in limbo".  Basically, it seems the bill is just about dead in Louisiana, though it may be revived by the end of the current legislature.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #290 on: June 07, 2011, 10:38:34 AM »

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #291 on: June 07, 2011, 03:04:39 PM »

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #292 on: June 08, 2011, 01:06:23 AM »

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #293 on: June 08, 2011, 06:28:04 AM »

OK, the NPVIC is on the active list for today's session of the Republican-controlled New York State Senate today, which was introduced by a Republican and unanimously passed the Elections Committee about a month ago.  It is calendar no. 398:

http://www.nysenate.gov/event/2011/jun/07/senate-session-06-07-11

I have not seen it on the active list before, but I find that generally at the beginning of the session, they go through the active list.  The session today is at 1400 EDT.  So we'll see.

It passed 47-13-2.

Really ? So it has a strong chance to pass with a democratic House and Governor.

I suppose New York Republicans have nothing to lose by doing this....it's not like they're going to win New York in the near future.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,665
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #294 on: June 24, 2011, 10:17:14 PM »

Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #295 on: June 25, 2011, 03:15:54 AM »

I know politics are extremely cynical, but I like to think that people in the loser's party would be honest enough to respect the compact their State engaged in. Otherwise, well, I'd just feel sad for the country.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #296 on: June 25, 2011, 03:25:26 AM »

Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #297 on: June 25, 2011, 08:24:32 PM »

Is there anything to stop a state legislature from overturning the results after the fact in the current system either?


If they do so, they would lose the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5.  Note that this was part of the controversy in Bush v. Gore and one of the errors in that decision.  SCOTUS ruled that the Florida legislature considered having its electors be protected by the safe harbor provisions of 3 USC 5 to be so important that any procedure for determining who the electors would need to be concluded by six days before the meeting of the electors so as to be protected under the safe harbor provision.  If a court was going to make that sort of ruling it should have been a Florida court that made it, not SCOTUS.

(Note, SCOTUS likely correctly inferred the intent of the Florida legislature, as losing the safe-harbor provisions is one reason why the legislature stayed out of the controversy despite considering inserting themselves into it. However, it wasn't their job to do the inferring.)
Logged
beneficii
Rookie
**
Posts: 159


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #298 on: June 27, 2011, 11:46:17 PM »

Okay, so I have a question about this NPVIC thing…

Let us assume that it actually garners enough support to go into effect.  Let’s also assume that it withstands any legal challenges that it might encounter and that it is upheld by the SCOTUS. 

THIS IS THE SCENARIO:

The year is 2020. 

The closest national election in twenty years has just taken place.  In it, the Republican candidate has 48.9% of the national popular vote--the most of any candidate.  Because of this, the NPVIC should elect him president.

NOT SO FAST!!!

Only minutes after the Republican is declared the winner, political junkies (who’s lives have been made a lot less exciting by the NPVIC) do insanely fast calculations to conclude that if electoral votes were being allocated under a statewide-WTA (the old way of doing things) then the Democratic candidate would actually win the election with a 273-265 electoral college victory!

Since the Democratic candidate and his army of super-lawyers are sexy, master statesmen they are able to do enough arm-wrangling in the NPVIC states to coerce the state legislatures to send electors to the electoral college who will support the statewide popular vote winner, who turns out to be the Democratic candidate.  At the electoral college meeting on December 18th they do exactly that, all of the NPVIC member states (except for one) decide to cast their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.  In a clear violation of the NPVIC, he is elected president despite losing the popular vote.

So, this is the loophole in the NPVIC.  Its not legally binding!  A state could “pull-out” of the NPVIC at the last moment and thus swing the election.  Even worse, the other member states could take no action against those who violate the agreement--as the states are given the right to appoint their electors in whatever manner they see fit in the Constitution. 

So, how is this problem reconciled?


The NPVIC already handles this.  This is from the text of the NPVIC:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/888wordcompact.php
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #299 on: July 08, 2011, 12:07:14 AM »

If the NPVIC will requirers all states to sign on, why not just have an amendment?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 11 queries.