Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Хahar 🤔]

Since Arnold doesn't seem to get the idea, we can pass it once he's gone in a couple of years, which will mean a lot of EV's in the Compact's corner.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

"Scheme"? It seems that rejection of this is a "scheme" to preserve the unfair influence of small states.

[Хahar 🤔]

Oh, Verily, was that you who commented numerous times on the talk page of the Wikipedia article?

[Хahar 🤔]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

[Хahar 🤔]

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?

Not that I know of.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

Her reason was the same stupid one Arnold gave, though.

[Хahar 🤔]

I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?

Not likely. IMO, he's too popular in Vermot to let a little thing like this affect him.

[Хahar 🤔]

In what way is a system that occasionally has the minority win a check against tyranny of the majority?

[Хahar 🤔]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

[Хahar 🤔]

Ah, but effective overrepresentation and actual overrepresentation are very different beasts. Chicago does not vote monolithically; the residents of the townships remain enfranchised. I see no reason for a state to have to jump through hoops for its people to get the representation they deserve.

[Хahar 🤔]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.

What? Because I have the influence I deserve in some bodies, that makes it reasonable for me to be denied equal influence in another?

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

[Хahar 🤔]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California?

Given the nature of the American city, I essentially never interact with poors. I certainly haven't interacted with a poor in 2010. On the other hand, take this interaction: I, a rich from California, am interacting with you, a rich from Colorado.

California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

This is true, but irrelevant. The Senate does not legislate on behalf of either state.

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Citizens FROM social classes vote, because citizens of social classes are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my provincial government has huge mandates imposed by a central government in Berlin? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from the lower classes imposed a policy on us because it made them look good in their group, but harmed mine. Social classes deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the central government, yet one pays taxes for their income, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Congratulations, we have an argument for Prussian democracy. The fundamental issue with this argument is that it assumes that the right to participate in a democracy comes with the payment of taxes, which I contest.
READ THIS

But let's go with your tax-based reasoning. It's fine if you don't want a policy imposed by big states. But you shouldn't expect to be protected by a military funded by taxes from big states. If states have an equal say in how money is doled out, they should bear an equal share of the load. You can't have 7.441 times more influence than me by force of population unless you also pay 7.441 times more taxes than I do.

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course it's feasible, but I don't think that it's morally right.

[Хahar 🤔]

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Your anecdotal evidence and mine are worth about the same. Anyhow, this tangent is getting entirely unrelated, so let's abandon it.

Now, my argument, put, well... better

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Do you not understand this?

Underrepresentation in some areas combined with adequate representation in others is still net underrepresentation.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You know what? I don't care about that. I believe that everyone should have a vote counting the same. End of story.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Now, my argument, put, well... better

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

You don't understand that my arguments are philosophical and not political

As are mine. If a place isn't getting a good deal in the situation it's in, it ought to change that.

Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

Yes, Colorado gets it fair. You are thus admitting that the system is unfair.

A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

So, then, change "county" to "state".

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

Let me refer you to this:

Do you not understand this?

Underrepresentation in some areas combined with adequate representation in others is still net underrepresentation.

Read it well.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

I fail to see how that affects my argument.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence.

I don't know how you can say these things with a straight face. In 1820, the British parliamentary constituency of Old Sarum had seven voters and returned two members to the Commons, and the constituency of Westminster had 9,280 voters and also returned two members to the Commons. Presumably this was also an equalizer and not giving some people more influence?

The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

That's not true; rural areas are not ignored in the House, and many of its most powerful members come from rural areas. If it were true, than it would mean that rural areas were so insignificant that they deserved to be ignored.

Oh, and you believe it equality and democracy and stuff, but I recall you calling voters idiots on multiple occasions.

Oh, certainly. But rule by idiots is better than any other sort.

Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.

It depends on the situation. Do I believe that Singapore ought to have a federalist system? Of course not. Do I believe that Russia should have a federalist government? Obviously. For America, federalism is preferable to a unitary state, given America's size. But federalism means that areas within the state decide local matters. I see no relation between federalism and the apportionment of representatives in a central legislature.

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

Isn't debate the (theoretical) point of this forum?

[Хahar 🤔]

If the NPVIC will requirers all states to sign on, why not just have an amendment?

It only requires enough states for a majority of electoral votes.