The real problem with the Electoral College.

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
The bill doesn't change ANYTHING in the Constitution.
It changes state laws.
You might have to change something in the Constitution to give Congress or the President power to change state laws. Such power was not omitted from the Constitution by accident. It was proposed, for example, by the Hamilton Plan - which was pretty much DOA at the Philly Convention.

BTW, having any luck establishing that the Founding Fathers (without limitation) thought blacks should not vote? Or that people should be required to have "significant money" to vote. Or do you plan to continue to toss out false claims and ignore requests for substantiation?
 
Last edited:
May 2019
227
Salt Lake City, Utah
No one has shown that the FF wanted blacks to vote.

The propertied franchise as a concept among the FF is not up for question, for that has been decided long ago.

The NPV is presumed constitutional unless the SCOTUS says 'no'.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
No one has shown that the FF wanted blacks to vote.
So? No one has shown that you want blacks to vote. But, no one has to disprove someone else's claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

It wasn't that long ago, in my memory, when that was part of the rules of the forum. That is, when someone made a claim and was challenged for support, support had to be provided. I know, because it happened to me where the moderator pointed out that I was asked for and had to provide citations. The level of conversation is lower now without that. It's easier for posters to just make stuff up.

However, there is still a rule about agenda mongering which might intersect with your constant NPV campaigning.
 
Last edited:
May 2019
227
Salt Lake City, Utah
I have not seen anyone prove that the NPV is not constitutional. Why it is reasonably within the constitutional purview has been explained competently several times above, and continued disagreement is fine but not conclusive.

The 'agenda mongering' appears to be those who have an objection to NPV. Accept it or not. The courts will make the final determination.
 
Last edited:
May 2010
11
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
 
Sep 2014
1,222
Queens, NYC
If the NPV were in effect when Democrats won states with the most electoral votes and a Republican had a majority of the popular vote, the Democrats would suddenly remember that the Constitution says the most electoral votes, and would toss the NPV into the wastebasket.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,431
Caribbean
only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote
So, it would be correct then to infer that your earlier claim of "significant money" was false, as you have now substituted property for money. Well, you are getting warmer - if by property you actually mean land. One could own a lot of "property," for example, like a fleet of commercial ships, but not be qualified in states requiring land "ownership."

And then there is "substantial."
  • In New York, the Constitution said, "he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county." Twenty pounds? Substantial? Answers.com says one of those pounds is worth 80 pounes today, and poundsterlinglive,com says 80 pounds is worth about 115 Euro, which is worth about 130 dollars. So land worth 20 pounds then is the equivalent of $10,500. (Also, not that the law says freehold and that does not mean a cash purchase. One could have borrowed 100% of the purchase, have zero equity, and thus "own" nothing).
  • In Pennsylvania, the Constitution says "freeholder" or "sons of freeholders" without regard to any amount "substantial" or picayune.
  • New Jersey may be the high-water mark at 1,000 pounds of value. And that would be a little north of $100,000 today.
As I have posted several times in the thread, I have no faith in the idea that the pillars of good government are idiots voting - and no one has attempted to rebut that. It would appear to me that the Founders that that voting was not a "right," but a "privilege." In the 1787 Constitution only House is subject to direct election.

It seems to me that while campaigning for the NPV agenda or removing the EC, people cannot extol the virtues of idiots voting, so they try the more standard and inverse tactic of demonization. After all, it is a lot easier to throw mud at the Founders who are not here to defend themselves than it is to make a "substantial" case for idiots voting in the face of my rebuttals.

Yes, the Constitution is "old." And yes it can be amended. But it still appears to me that on issues of governance and civil society that average Founder has about 100 IQ point advantage over his typical "critic."
 
May 2010
11
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”