California strong arm

[Poisonshady313]

I see that you do not understand the initiative. Once again it relies on the popular vote. Not on the electoral college. They need a majority of the electoral college votes to make it practical. It does not matter who each individual state votes for. It works because it forces that block of states to vote for the winner by popular vote.

I understand it just fine. But because the popular vote and electoral vote typically line up with extremely rare exceptions, the way people campaign and vote would not be expected to change.

Even if the compact were adopted immediately, you might not see the effect of it in your lifetime.

 

[Enoch07]

You may have read it. Your post tells us that you did not understand it. Tell me, why is it unconstitutional?

Already did. Refer to post # 114 for the answer you've already been given but refuse to accept....like usual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it just fine. But because the popular vote and electoral vote typically line up with extremely rare exceptions, the way people campaign and vote would not be expected to change.

Even if the compact were adopted immediately, you might not see the effect of it in your lifetime.

Technically we would see an immediate change. Practically we might not ever see a difference.

 

[Poisonshady313]

enoch, perhaps you might take a stab at my questions.

You said: If we took away the electoral college, and relied solely on the popular vote. CA and NY would have the power to elect every President.

I ask: How?


You said: The electoral college prevents us from being ruled by just these 2 states alone.

I ask: How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already did. Refer to post # 114 for the answer you've already been given but refuse to accept....like usual.

but post 114 had nothing to do with my post. I read post 114. I understood it. You did not understand my post. If you had you would not have made such a blunder.

 

[Enoch07]

Why did you not quote the entire post?

I quoted that which merited a response. Which is what you are supposed to do. Contrary to popular belief you are not supposed to quote an entire persons post to respond. You are supposed to highlight what you are responding to and hit "quote" that's what the function is intended for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

4. Amend the constitution. Direct national popular vote. There's no reason not to.

Thats likely the easiest way to make sure everyones vote is counted and weighted to count no more and no less than 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I quoted that which merited a response. Which is what you are supposed to do. Contrary to popular belief you are not supposed to quote an entire persons post to respond. You are supposed to highlight what you are responding to and hit "quote" that's what the function is intended for.

Wrong again. Go back and read the entire post. If you understand it you will see that post 114 does not apply. You got confused again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats likely the easiest way to make sure everyones vote is counted and weighted to count no more and no less than 1.

the National Popular Vote Initiative makes amending the Constitution unnecessary:

National Popular Vote Initiative

Though for some reason @Enoch07 seems to think it is unconstitutional, though he quotes an irrelevant case law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

the National Popular Vote Initiative makes amending the Constitution unnecessary:

National Popular Vote Initiative

Though for some reason @Enoch07 seems to think it is unconstitutional, though he quotes an irrelevant case law.

It would require an amendment as the EC is constitutionally prescribed.​

 

[Enoch07]

the National Popular Vote Initiative makes amending the Constitution unnecessary:

National Popular Vote Initiative

Though for some reason @Enoch07 seems to think it is unconstitutional, though he quotes an irrelevant case law.

That is misrepresentation.

I never said the National Popular Vote Initiative was unconstitutional. It is a complete separate issue from California requiring tax returns to be on the ballot.

I hope they pass the NPVI. It just means traditional blue states have a chance at going red, while red states have little to no chance turning blue. More power to em!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would require an amendment as the EC is constitutionally prescribed.​

Actually not quite. The EC would still exist with that initiative, but it forces a majority to vote for the popular vote winner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is misrepresentation.

I never said the National Popular Vote Initiative was unconstitutional. It is a complete separate issue from California requiring tax returns to be on the ballot.

I hope they pass the NPVI. It just means traditional blue states have a chance at going red, while red states have little to no chance turning blue. More power to em!

No, it is not. You forgot your recent blunder. You claimed that post 114 addressed this issue and I told that that meant you did not understand the post that you quoted out of context. Now you are contradicting yourself.

By the way, traditional red states have just as much chance of turning blue. Too bad that you do not understand the initiative.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually not quite. The EC would still exist with that initiative, but it forces a majority to vote for the popular vote winner.

That can't happens without an amendment as the Constitution allows each state to figure out howll they'll approach the EC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That can't happens without an amendment as the Constitution allows each state to figure out howll they'll approach the EC.

You need to understand the initiative. It is an agreement between states that goes into effect only if the electoral votes of the states involved is a majority. Once that threshold is reached then any election while the block holds has promised to assign all of their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. Technically the electoral college will still exist, but the winner of it will be determined by the national popular vote. Not by the vote of each state.

 

[Enoch07]

No, it is not. You forgot your recent blunder. You claimed that post 114 addressed this issue and I told that that meant you did not understand the post that you quoted out of context. Now you are contradicting yourself.

Here is post #114

Not if the state law interferes with Comatitutional rights. In that case it makes the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that states cannot place additional requirements on would-be candidates. FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

So yeah even if the Governor signs the bill it is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and a violation of the residents of Californias civil rights.

Nothing about NPVI. You just got caught making a huge mistake, by misrepresenting my argument then doubled down with another misrepresentation.

Ever wonder why you are not taken seriously. There is your sign.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is post #114


Nothing about NPVI. You just got caught making a huge mistake, by misrepresenting my argument then doubled down with another misrepresentation.

Ever wonder why you are not taken seriously. There is your sign.

Good, we agree. That must mean that you see your earlier blunder when you claimed that addressed my post. Finally we are getting somewhere.

But I see that you are still confused. Your constant blunders are why no one takes you seriously. Sadly you are projecting again by doing the actual "doubling down".

You seem to have forgotten that I asked you what your post 114 had to do with the NPVI.

 

[Enoch07]

Good, we agree. That must mean that you see your earlier blunder when you claimed that addressed my post. Finally we are getting somewhere.

But I see that you are still confused. Your constant blunders are why no one takes you seriously. Sadly you are projecting again by doing the actual "doubling down".

You seem to have forgotten that I asked you what your post 114 had to do with the NPVI.

Here you asked about the initiative but did not quote my post about the initiative.

This initiative does not put additional requirements on candidates. It deals with how a state chooses its electors for the electoral college. That is within a state's rights. That case law does not apply.

You quoted post #114 which says nothing about the initiative.

Again, you are intentionly misrepresenting my argument with your cross post.

If you want to go back an quote my NPVI post and talk about that then do so. But quoting #114 which has nothing to do with NPVI then saying it does is misrepresenting me and a straw man to boot.

Go quote my NPVI post and well talk about it. But you saying I said its unconstitutional is a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you asked about the initiative but did not quote my post about the initiative.



You quoted post #114 which says nothing about the initiative.

Again, you are intentionly misrepresenting my argument with your cross post.

If you want to go back an quote my NPVI post and talk about that then do so. But quoting #114 which has nothing to do with NPVI then saying it does is misrepresenting me and a straw man to boot.

Go quote my NPVI post and well talk about it. But you saying I said its unconstitutional is a lie.

Amazing. You still have not gone back to see where you screwed up. As a result you are now contradicting yourself.

I was talking about the NPVI and you claimed that post 114 dealt with it. I told you right away that you were confused. There is a reason that you should not quite out of context. That is not only rude, it can confuse the person that is guilty of that sin.

 

[Enoch07]

I was talking about the NPVI and you claimed that post 114 dealt with it.

No you quoted post #114 and started talking about the initiative. That was your error not mine.