The real problem with the Electoral College.

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,345
I found this at the NPVIC site. It is the official response to the interstate compacts legal objection. The below is just a snippet, for more detail click on the link:

LINK: 9.16 Myths about Interstate Compacts and Congressional Consent

9.16.1 MYTH: Interstate compacts are exotic and fishy.
QUICK ANSWER:

  • Interstate compacts are authorized by the U.S. Constitution and are in widespread use by every state.
– CLICK TO CLOSE DETAILED ANSWER​
The U.S. Constitution authorizes states to enter into interstate compacts.​
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power.”[420]

Interstate compacts predate the Constitution. One interstate compact approved at the time of the Articles of Confederation remained in force until 1958 (when it was replaced by an updated version).​
The subject matter of existing interstate compacts varies widely and has included such topics as agriculture, boundaries, bridges, building construction and safety, child welfare, civil defense, conservation, corrections, crime control, cultural issues, education, emergency management, energy, facilities, flood control, gambling and lotteries, health, insurance, interstate school districts, low-level radioactive waste, metropolitan problems, motor vehicles, national guard, natural resources, navigation, parks and recreation, pest control, planning and development, ports, property, public safety, river basins, taxation, transportation, and water.​
Examples of compacts include the:​

  • Colorado River Compact (allocating water among seven western states),
    • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (a two-state compact),
    • Multistate Tax Compact (whose membership includes 23 states and the District of Columbia),
    • Interstate Oil and Gas Compact,
    • Interstate Corrections Compact,
    • Mutual Aid Compact,
    • Great Lakes Basin Compact (to which the Canadian province of Ontario is a party along with various states), and
    • Multi-State Lottery Compact (which operates the Powerball lotto game in numerous states).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chlodio
Jul 2019
844
New Jersey
Of course, we all know that the real problem with the Electoral College is that the wrong people won through it. The same way the real problem with the Supreme Court is that it's no longer a reliable agent of judicial activism.
 
Sep 2014
1,222
Queens, NYC
The allocation of Congressional seats based, in part, on a population of illegal immigrants has the uneasy implication that lawbreakers have a right to control-if only in part-our political decisions.

The problem of the NPVIC is of course that it will be nullified in practice as soon as a Republican gets a popular majority (even if narrow) and the Democrat gets an Electoral College majority.
 
Apr 2014
65
new york
I will reply as soon as you begin to make sense. There is no deep state. Please get over it.
I will reply as soon as you make sense. There is a Deep State. It has been actively working against him since before the election. Even the fake news talks about it. Wake up. They should bring back SAT analogies

Comey @ FBI, Brennan @ CIA, Mueller, ranks of bureaucrats and random judges, all operating in dubious legality to thwart the President. Even if they disagree with the President, this is very dangerous territory for our constitutional system.

Indeed, even Emperors have been stymied by bureaucracies. The real question then, is not about the Electoral College - the real question, the problem is, what to do about an entrenched bureaucracy? When they abolished the spoils system, they replaced it with a permanent bureaucracy - if only they had known more history, they would realize the danger of a bureaucracy imposing its whims on the nation and even against the Emperor
 
Apr 2014
65
new york
By that logic, though, why not also exclude children? After all, they can't vote either!
Come now, are you compelled to play devil's advocate here? All societies have children. The question now is how will we be able to run and order our society for the benefit of its members into the future?

Do you let just anyone into your home? Can we let just anybody into the country? Why should the entire planet get a vote in our country?

That would mean I can just break into your home and start demanding things of you
 

Isoroku295

Ad Honorem
Jan 2009
8,488
In the Past
By that logic, though, why not also exclude children? After all, they can't vote either!
He didn't mention is they can vote. It's less a matter of who can vote, and more a matter of who is rightfully a member of that society. If there are laws governing the entrance of foreign members into a society, then those who enter that society is an unlawful manner should not be considered a rightful member of society.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,757
San Antonio, Tx
As I replied to another poster, and please correct me if I am wrong, but a proportional electoral college vote will merely mirror, or at least reflect, the proportional popular vote.
Yes, and what’s wrong with that? There may have been an historical reason for the existence of the Electoral College, but I don’t see it and don’t understand it. In any case, I feel that the EC should be abolished forthwith. It is a way to remove the voter - especially in larger states - from having “undue power” in deciding elections. Really? You mean, the person who gets the most votes doesn’t win? On what planet is that either fair or just?

It seems to me that the Electoral College is merely a way to block real democracy. If, for constitutional reasons, the EC cannot be abolished, then Electoral Votes should definitely be proportional based on the vote which would actually have the benefit of throwing the EC into the dustbin of American history. Anything that obstructs the popular vote in electing a president should be eliminated and should be unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartakus X

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Yes, and what’s wrong with that? There may have been an historical reason for the existence of the Electoral College, but I don’t see it and don’t understand it. In any case, I feel that the EC should be abolished forthwith. It is a way to remove the voter - especially in larger states - from having “undue power” in deciding elections. Really? You mean, the person who gets the most votes doesn’t win? On what planet is that either fair or just?

It seems to me that the Electoral College is merely a way to block real democracy. If, for constitutional reasons, the EC cannot be abolished, then Electoral Votes should definitely be proportional based on the vote which would actually have the benefit of throwing the EC into the dustbin of American history. Anything that obstructs the popular vote in electing a president should be eliminated and should be unconstitutional.
The U.S. is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. The electoral college has served the republic well for a variety of reasons, as I have already posted. As for constitutionality of the E.C., it is precisely part of the Constitution and not so surprisingly, a straight popular vote is unconstitutional at the moment. Those silly Founding Fathers. What do they do compared to the average joe today?