What's new
By:

The United States is NOT a democracy and never was

Gameface said:
It probably will never happen because the EC will always favor, even if only slightly, one party over the other so you'll likely never get a consensus that you'd need to pass an amendment.
Click to expand...
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively end the EC and it is not a Constitutional amendment. It wouldn't even need to pass the House or the Senate as a bill. If enough states sign on then the popular vote will elect the President.

en.wikipedia.org

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Al-O-Meter said:
For the local and smaller jobs I'm all for democracy but in the bigger jobs, I like to see the types of hard constraints on power that popular opinion alone does not provide.
Click to expand...
I agree, but unfortunately those constraints are not imposed by allowing power brokers (aka state legislatures) to decide who holds the reins of power. The constraints come from the rule of law and the cultural expectations of following those rules. The filibuster (and other various rules of the Senate and House) does more to impose constraints than the appointment of Senators ever would.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively end the EC and it is not a Constitutional amendment. It wouldn't even need to pass the House or the Senate as a bill. If enough states sign on then the popular vote will elect the President.
Click to expand...
Unless states decide to back out. It still comes down to every state choosing how to decide their EC votes.
 
gandalfe said:
So, are you opposed to each state deciding how to apportion their votes?
Click to expand...
In that way, yes. I oppose it. I can recognize their right to do it and can even applaud their inventiveness in the method they've come up with to circumvent passing a constitutional amendment, but I hope it never comes to pass. If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
In that way, yes. I oppose it. I can recognize their right to do it and can even applaud their inventiveness in the method they've come up with to circumvent passing a constitutional amendment, but I hope it never comes to pass. If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
Click to expand...
But it is literally in the constitution that they can determine how to determine their electors. I thought you were all about abiding by the constitution above all else?
 
gandalfe said:
But it is literally in the constitution that they can determine how to determine their electors. I thought you were all about abiding by the constitution above all else?
Click to expand...
It is like the old first amendment line of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I do not see a contradiction in recognizing the constitutional right granted to the states to apportion their votes in this manner -AND- my personally disagreeing with the states choosing to make that choice. Yes they can do it, and no I hope they do not.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
Click to expand...
Do go on. Tell us how a popularly elected President leads tot he destruction of the union in its current form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top