To be fair, she couldn’t answer the question without considering it.
1 Like
My NY friends are all going crazy. All the high costs but none of the usual amenities.
1 Like
A partial victory for the good guys just announced by the SCOTUS. In a nine to zip vote, they upheld the right of states to bind electors by law to vote, in the electoral college, in accord with that state’s popular vote outcome.
Nine to zip SCOTUS votes in controversial matters are rare. My goodness, even RBG voted to support the Constitution!
It’s only a partial victory, though. Most states support with their law the common sense view that electors should vote in accord with that state’s popular vote. But this SCOTUS ruling leaves open opportunity for blue states to allow, in their law, faithless electors.
Understandable:
NYC being turned into a “no-go” zone
Just exactly where is Snake Plissken when you need him?
I’ve visited NYC several times as a tourist. Loved to stay a few nights in the downtown ( is it up or down) area. From our hotel we could look down at Madison Sq Garden, took a tour thru the Knicks locker room… Even saw a Broadway Show. So much fun!
You couldn’t pay me to visit area now.
Anyone who could appreciate the political powers that govern NYC & state should be ashamed. Painting BLM on the sidewalks of NYC is a disgrace. (in my opinion)
Personally, I don’t see a win for anyone there. The system is still incredibly undemocratic with 10s of millions of voters in non-swing states being disenfranchised. Like pattyb53 in CA whom I wouldn’t blame for staying home on November 3rd because CA is going to be blue for the foreseeable future and neither presidential candidate is gonna bother campaign too hard in because of that. Until that’s completely revamped, these type of issues will continue to come up no matter what.
It’s obviously not the place of SCOTUS to change that but still I don’t see much reason to rejoice over the continuation of a messed up system.
1 Like
The system, to which you refer as being “messed up”, is responsible for the existence of the United States of America. Learn your history.
At the beginning there were only the individual states. Getting them to come together and form the USA was like herding cats. Much compromise was needed. The electoral college was one such compromise. It protected the smaller states from domination by the larger ones. It still does.
There was much genius in the men who pulled off what they did at the founding. Respect it. Such genius surely is not around now . . . . and it’s not even close.
1 Like
This was a controversial matter? I had no idea.
Why do you single out blue states? Does this ruling prohibit red states from allowing, in their law, faithless electors?
2 Likes
Are you unaware of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
1 Like
Aware, had forgotten about it. A single red state joining the compact, as unlikely as that may be right now, would invalidate your argument.
2 Likes
It’s the purple states I’m worried about.
The compact is an attempted end run around the Constitution. I hope it fails.
1 Like
???
The Constitution states that the states get to decide how the electors are selected. States’ rights and all that…
The 17th amendment specifically applies only to senators.
States are forbidden to enter into such arrangements between themselves absent consent of Congress.
Also
It VERY CLEARLY is an attempt to elect the POTUS based on popular vote, circumventing the founders’ compromise. Once again:
I hope it fails. It is a typical left wing POS.
The founders left it up to the state governments, no direct election or preference poll required at all. And no binding of electors - they could freely vote however they want.
SCOTUS decided it’s most “reasonable” to allow states to optionally bind delegates and penalize faithless electors, based on various posited “what if” scenarios, not based on the text of the constitution.
SCOTUS didn’t do the crazy-off-the-wall legislating from the bench that you seem to be advocating of saying states can’t even set the rules for how they individually select or direct their electors. That clearly would require a constitutional amendment, just like the 17th amendment changed the rules for electing senators.
Arguably, it “might” make sense to pass an amendment for direct election of the electors by popular vote of individual states. But at that point, wouldn’t it seem more logical to just do away with the electoral college completely, rather than a half-measure?
I do not agree with anything you are “thinking”
State’s rights are a right, not an obligation. If a state chooses to waive or assign that right, so be it.
Each state has different rules as far as how to ratify such an agreement, but I’d expect it to be posed as a ballot initiative (or at least an election cycle where voters know if the candidates plan to enter it or not) before taking effect. And the fact that, as you pointed out, such an agreement can only happen with the consent of Congress.
1 Like
Depends, maybe or maybe not, outlines some of the issues here
Just because the name includes the word “compact” does not mean it necessarily constitutes a compact.
Probably go before SCOTUS if it ever becomes active.
1 Like
I’m afraid you’re the one in need of a history lesson. The electoral college envisioned by the founders allowed voters in each district to choose “Electors”, and then allow those Electors to consider all the issues, hold a debate, and cast two votes (one of which must be for someone not from their own state). The Electors were not bound to elect anyone in particular. The founders wanted Electors to be sophisticated and educated enough as to make a proper selection for someone worthy of the office of the President (most votes) or Vice President (2nd-most votes). I don’t see how it protected smaller states from larger states. And it’s very different from what we have today.
2 Likes
The whole purpose to remove swing states from the equation. There are states currently with Democrat leadership, that could vote Red in November. Those are the states this compact hopes to take off the table, by capitalizing on their current leadership over the voice of the state’s residents.
I’m not really against the concept. But no current governor (and whoever else is agreeing to this compact) was elected with even a hint of the possibility they’d be giving away the state’s electoral votes. You can always vote out the current guy because he gave them away, but by then the damage cant be undone. It needs to be an issue that is voted on, in some way, before it happens.
2 Likes
Fair enough. But the point is not about that. The point is it never was “one man one vote”.
It’s about the NUMBER of electors allocated to each state, not their process. The electoral college compromise was based on yet another compromise: the Senate. To wit:
Each state, regardless population, is entitled to two Senators. For example: Wyoming gets two. California gets two.
California is saturated with people. Wyoming has few. But the power of both states is equal in the Senate. One man one vote? Hardly. Not even remotely close.
And so it is, and was intended to be, in the electoral college and hence in the selection of the POTUS.
Liberals want popular election of the POTUS. That is not what the founders envisioned. Period.
Want to change this? Amend the Constitution.
2 Likes