tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 A simple fix to an antiquated, unfair system - without a constitutional amendment. States would assign electoral votes based on the national popular vote: National Popular Vote Plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 doesn't this increase the odds of needing a national recount for a close election, a la florida in 2000 but on a much shittier scale? don't the "swing states" have no motivation to change the status quo, since it brings them so much more attention, and thus potentialy swag from the eventual victors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 Voting is managed at the state level, so recounts would still happen at the state level. A national recount would never be necessary. Only an electoral vote count of 270 is required for the new system to take effect, so not all states need sign on. Remember, its based on the national, not state level popular vote. Right now the count is 132 -so 138 more are needed. MI, TX, NY, IN and a handful of non-swing southern states would do it - no swing state required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 One more reason to support it: "We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency." 2012 GOP Platform Watch out for those evil ballot boxes! Voter suppression, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 I suspected the GOP Platform might oppose vote by mail (because it prevents voter suppression - their favorite game and provides the greatest access to all voters - not good for a party that's chronically outnumbered) and lo, it does: "States or political subdivisions that use all-mail elections cannot ensure the integrity of the ballot." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 i don't see why the gop would oppose it but then i don't understand the proposal very well - i suppose the system would have worked against them in 2000, but in theory it's still 50/50 when it comes to a close vote instead of washington divying up it's ec votes by the popular vote in this state it uses the national #'s? does that pass our state consitution's muster? i'd be pissed if, say everyone in this state voted democrat, but then had to help hand over power to the replicants. and, as i understand it, the "faithless elector" laws some states have passed are likely unconstitutional, but have never been challenged as so simply b/c it's never been an issue - what happens when the electors of a state decide on decemeber 15 not to vote the way their state said so? i could be talked round to it i suppose, just want to banter about it more... this proposal does nothing to solve the impossibility of a 3rd party taking the white house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 The GOP opposes any change to the current electoral college system, presumably because: 1) The electoral college was created so conservative slave owners would garner more representation, their black charges equaling 1/3 of a person. The link between modern conservatism and the movement of that time remains unbroken, if somewhat altered, based on the striking similarity of both rhetoric and political maps. 2) The national popular vote difficult to game. The GOP has been involved in various forms of voter suppression from the very beginning. Such programs, whether illegal (poll watchers telling blacks they've got to pay their rent before voting - OH, 2000) or 'legal' - the new voter ID requirements that accept IDs from groups that typically vote conservative - concealed weapons licenses, but deny IDs from groups that do not - student IDs. 3) Registered Democrats have outnumbered Rs in recent times: there. Ltards, Rfucks, Loons since 1990 Interestingly, the growth in independents indicates that a 3rd party is possible, but building that infrastructure and herding those cats would be no small task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 instead of washington divying up it's ec votes by the popular vote in this state it uses the national #'s? does that pass our state consitution's muster? i'd be pissed if, say everyone in this state voted democrat, but then had to help hand over power to the replicants. and, as i understand it, the "faithless elector" laws some states have passed are likely unconstitutional, but have never been challenged as so simply b/c it's never been an issue - what happens when the electors of a state decide on decemeber 15 not to vote the way their state said so? Federal constitutionality is certainly in question and it would be challenged...nevermind the state level clusterfuck. Gregoire signed it - as a former AG I assume it went through at least a preliminary constitutional review. An analysis: A Constitutional Law Professor Weighs In "The constitutional foundation of NPVIC is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that states shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Advocates of the compact point out that the plain language of this text appears to provide legislators with plenary authority over the method of selecting electors, an interpretation endorsed by the US Supreme Court more than a century ago in McPherson v. Blacker in 1892 and again in 1969, Williams v. Virginia Board of Elections. Like all provisions of the Constitution, however, this section must be read in context and in conjunction with other provisions of the Constitution. The principal constitutional impediment to NPVIC probably is the so-called "Compact Clause" in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Although the US Supreme Court has concluded that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states, it has indicated in US Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission that the Compact Clause requires Congress to consent to an agreement that "would enhance the political power of the member States in a way that encroaches upon the supremacy of the United States," or "impairs the sovereign rights of non-member states." There's more in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 The absolute simplest option is to do what NE and ME have already done - shitcan the winner takes all approach entirely at the state level and apportion electoral votes by district. This is still an imperfect system given the significant population changes that can occur between each 10 year census as compared to a popular vote. It would rectify the inordinate political power currently enjoyed by a few swing states, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The absolute simplest option is to do what NE and ME have already done - shitcan the winner takes all approach entirely at the state level and apportion electoral votes by district. i'd be fine w/ that if every other state did it simultaneously, but obviously it would just fuck one party or the other if it was scattershot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 i do like a popular vote system as the e.c. justifiably makes voters feel their individual vote ain't worth anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Interestingly, the growth in independents indicates that a 3rd party is possible, but building that infrastructure and herding those cats would be no small task. i don't follow - constitution demands a majority of the e.c. votes (currently 270) to become president - how does a 3rd party ever get that? sure, a 3rd party could conceivably get more than the 2 established parties, but no way a full on 51% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Well, here's where it gets interesting. If there is no majority (50+%), and it's not a tie (the House chooses between the two), then the House chooses the prez from among the top 5 runner ups: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice." So, the Constitution does (imperfectly) allow for a competitive 3...or 4, or 5, party election that does not involve a majority win - but the voters are kind of ushered out the door at that point. You can imagine the fun and games that would follow if this little know clause is ever put into practice. Perhaps characteristically, the framers misused the term 'majority' to describe a tie - perhaps conflating it with 'plurality' just that once - but then, they also authored the retard's stream of consciousness cone that is the 2nd Amendment, as well. Edited November 16, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I've got a better fix, abolish the states as an unnecessary anachronism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) And have that bowl full of incompetent, pompous, clueless assholes decide everything? Fuuuuuuuck that. The States have always been a our best hope for progress and reform. They can solve problems that the fed can't, won't, or isn't even aware of. The latest election in WA comes to mind. A healthy dose of local control, tempered by civil rights guarantees for all, seems like a good formula to me. Edited November 16, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I've got a better fix, abolish the states as an unnecessary anachronism. anachronism, why in 400 BC you had boys like socrates saying "i am not a greek or an athenian, but a citizen of the world." course, i think the tearing down of political walls was what the anarchists were all about last century, and all they managed to do was make some mildy interesting, noisy music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Except now in a modern world it's a recipe for complete clusterfuckage on every front - especially infrastructure. And rights? Corporate lawyers play state law like a fiddle. And what rights do I have? California rights, Alabama rights, New York rights, or Texas rights? Rights are sort of ala carte by state which I wouldn't call optimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 i got more rights w/ the coca-cola company then w/ genghis khan and his boys at least? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Except now in a modern world it's a recipe for complete clusterfuckage on every front - especially infrastructure. And rights? Corporate lawyers play state law like a fiddle. And what rights do I have? California rights, Alabama rights, New York rights, or Texas rights? Rights are sort of ala carte by state which I wouldn't call optimal. we need larger herds to thin more effectively Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I do know how technical terms fly over your head and that 'herd' is your new meme, but a shred of investigation and critical thought might serve you better both in terms of intelligent discourse and more injurious invective hurling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I do know how technical terms fly over your head and that 'herd' is your new meme, but a shred of investigation and critical thought might serve you better both in terms of intelligent discourse and more injurious invective hurling. Ah, the authoritarian rears his head once again to dictate behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Nah, it was just a public service banality alert. We now return you to your regularly scheduled spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.