Should the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact get 270 electoral college votes and go into effect, it would be fairly simple to break it, in various ways.
Federal law requires that the electors in each state meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December. Federal law does not require that every state make their votes publically available. One or more states could withhold their vote totals (depending on state law, of course, which can be changed) until the following Tuesday, after the electors of all states were required to vote.
This makes it so that the NPV member states (as written in Washington state law) cannot determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each state of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which
votes have been cast in a statewide popular election, and therefore cannot add such votes together to produce a "national popular vote total for each presidential slate, and therefore cannot designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner," and therefore cannot allocate their delegates based on any national popular vote.*
This could be done simply to fight against the NPV. But it could also be exploited for more nefarious purposes.
As my nefariously minded coworker points out: consider if a state voted for a Democratic candidate, but the government of the state is controlled by Republicans. It's a large enough state given the closeness of the election that their state would hand the "popular vote" to the Democratic candidate; but without their state's vote, the "popular vote" and electoral college vote would go to their favored Republican candidate.
So the state withholds their statewide popular vote totals, giving the victory to the Republican.
Oops.
Have I mentioned how "modifying" the Constitution without going through the amendments process is a bad idea? It is. The states all need to be together on something like this, enforced through federal power. The stakes are too high.
* Now, one could argue that the secretaries of state, under the compact, are empowered to work around this -- perhaps by excluding states that don't report, or even making educated guesses -- but if so, then that's extremely dangerous, as the secretary of state would also be effectively empowered to give his state's electoral votes to any candidate he chooses.
That is, if the secretary of state can leave out one or more states because they don't have any votes made public, for example, why not leave out other states because he thinks they didn't have a proper "statewide popular election"?
"Sorry Florida, your election was too flawed, I don't think it counts as a statewide popular vote, so I won't be including it."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 30, 2009 12:27 PM | Email ThisNow, the final outcome of an election will be dependant upon voters in other states.
For example, if NPV had been in place in 2004, then the presidential electors from the State of Washington would have been required to vote for Bush in the Electoral College, voiding the majority of votes by the voters of the state. Despite the vote by our state's citizens, the outcome would have been determined by how voters outside the state voted.
Stupid bill, stupid law.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 30, 2009 01:54 PMPudge has some interesting suggestions. But somehow I think a way would be found around them, if this popular vote compact ever becomes effective.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 30, 2009 02:02 PMIf this kind of mischief was so easy, it would have occurred under the current system in the numerous past cases where the abssence of a particular state's electoral vote might have affected the outcome (e.g., when either of NC, WV, or ARK's electoral votes in 2000 would have resulted in Gore's election by the Electoral College).
In fact, no such mischief occurs because of existing federal law (sections 5 and 6 of Title 3 of U.S. Code), which applies to both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote compact makes this unlikely and illegal scenario even less possible, since it requires member states to finalize their results and transmit them before the federal "safe harbor" date.
We end up with a very close national election -- less than 100,000 votes difference, whichever way you count it. Texas, on the other hand, is safely carried by the Republican candidate by a more than 1.5 million vote margin.
In Texas, the actual vote totals are in dispute. The Republican Secretary of State certifies the GOP ticket as the winner by 1.574 million votes, giving a nationwide GOP margin of 32,000 votes. However, Democrats in Texas argue that the GOP carried the state by only 1.518 million votes, which would put the Democrats in the lead by 24,000 votes nationally.
How does this dispute get resolved? There is no judicial forum available in the state of Texas, since the GOP wins that state by a wide margin, no matter which count is correct. Texas courts will not entertain an election contest lawsuit, since the only thing mattering under Texas law -- the statewide electoral vote winner -- cannot possibly change in any event.
As a result, the state courts in each and every state using the popular vote compact will have to entertain separate lawsuits in their state courts over the accuracy of the Texas popular vote totals. None of these state courts, of course, have any jurisdiction over the Texas election officials, so discovery and testimony will be a complex matter. Each state election contest lawsuit would be independent of the lawsuit in other states.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 30, 2009 02:17 PM@3: If this kind of mischief was so easy, it would have occurred under the current system in the numerous past cases where the abssence of a particular state's electoral vote might have affected the outcome (e.g., when either of NC, WV, or ARK's electoral votes in 2000 would have resulted in Gore's election by the Electoral College).
Yeah, but those are cases where you can pinpoint the issues and look for problems. In DC or Utah, for example, it probably doesn't quite matter that a number of votes were not counted correctly in the presidential race. On the other hand, one could easily imagine a scenario where a close race would boil down to each candidate trolling through recounts in every possible location to try to find discrepancies in voting totals.
Posted by: demo kid on April 30, 2009 02:30 PMIf this kind of mischief was so easy, it would have occurred under the current system in the numerous past cases where the abssence of a particular state's electoral vote might have affected the outcome
Nope. You're missing the point. I am not saying the votes would be withheld entirely, just not made public until after the electoral college members actually vote.
Moreover, the National Popular Vote compact makes this unlikely and illegal scenario even less possible, since it requires member states to finalize their results and transmit them before the federal "safe harbor" date.
Except that it would be NON-NPV states that would do this.
Richard Pope: How does this dispute get resolved? There is no judicial forum available in the state of Texas, since the GOP wins that state by a wide margin, no matter which count is correct. Texas courts will not entertain an election contest lawsuit, since the only thing mattering under Texas law -- the statewide electoral vote winner -- cannot possibly change in any event.
Very interesting scenario, indeed.
As a result, the state courts in each and every state using the popular vote compact will have to entertain separate lawsuits in their state courts over the accuracy of the Texas popular vote totals.
That's possible, but what is most likely is that they will have to accept Texas' official count. But we just don't know what would happen.
Each state election contest lawsuit would be independent of the lawsuit in other states.
Right. This is similar to the scenario I spelled out where Sam Reed could say Florida's count is ignored because it was so flawed that it doesn't constitute an actual statewide popular vote. We could have NPV states come up with independent "winners" for various reasons.
I'd disagree that this is "modifying the Constitution", though
I put the word "modifying" in quotes for a reason. Yes, it technically does not modify the Constitution, though it does alter the process by which EVERYONE elects the President, even in non-NPV-member states.
Personally, I would just favor one that doesn't suck.
Posted by: demo kid on April 30, 2009 02:53 PM@7: But it's like suggesting that state legislatures that relied on on referenda to choose Senators before the 17th Amendment was passed were "modifying the Constitution".
First, again, I did not saying "modifying the Constitution," I said, "'modifying' the Constitution."
Second, this is substantively different because YOUR state popularly electing Senators does not affect how MY state does so. This is the essence of my criticism when I say it is "anti-constitutional" and that it "'modifies' the Constitution without amendment."
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
The legislature of any state could decide that it wants to select its delegates to the Electoral College itself, if it wanted to. It could have the delegates be gubernatorial appointments, confirmed by the state senate. It could have each seat on the Electoral College delegation be an separately-elected public office. It could allocate seats on the delegation proportionate to the vote each party's presidential slate receives statewide, or by congressional district. Any of these, or anything else you might dream up, would be constitutional, so long as it was enacted by the state legislature. The fact that most states select their electors on the basis of which party's slate gets the greatest number of votes statewide is not required by the U.S. Constitution, but is just what's turned out to be popular. It wasn't always that way, and it didn't require a constitutional amendment when it was changed to be that way.
The electoral college was designed long before it was even remotely possible to run a nationwide campaign for president -- a time when it made perfect sense for each state to send a delegation to a far-off national capitol to debate the qualifications of the candidates for president and hire the best manager for the federal government. While there's some attractiveness to that idea (selecting the president by qualifications rather than campaign skills), the fact is that it is possible today for the candidates to deliver their messages to the people of the entire country, for the people to get enough information to formulate an opinion on who presents the vision and platform they most support, and for the people to cast an informed vote.
One advantage of a national popular vote is that every vote would count regardless of what state it's in. Instead of there being just 10 or so "battleground" states that are "in play" and get 95% of the attention from presidential candidates, parties will have to run truly national campaigns. Maybe we'd actually get some attention from presidential candidates here in Washington for a change.
Exactly, which is why what I said would work. The NPV states have to come to their final determination, but the OTHER states -- while they have to come to theirs, too -- do not have to make the final determination public, for the NPV states to rely upon.
Except, of course, there is no requirement for the non-NPV states to release such a final determination before the due date (first Monday after second Wednesday). If they do not, then the NPV states literally would be incapable of following their own law, which requires them to add up all the popular vote counts.
Let me spell it out more clearly: December 15, 2008 was the electoral college date. Texas decides (modifying its own law if necessary) to not release a PUBLIC official count until December 16, 2008. They privately inform the electors themselves (who are bound by a new Texas law to secrecy).
NPV fail.
No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
That's not clear. What you say is mostly right, except for that it only applies to states "in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election." So if, as in Richard Pope's example, Texas has a serious 100,000-vote discrepancy, there's nothing I see in the NPV compact to force a secretary of state to recognize Texas' syste, *as* a "statewide popular election."
If the R wins POTUS in this scenario one can imagine the screams from the left, and a movement to invalidate this new "NPV" method of assigning electors. This is inevitable as we know what poor losers the losers on the left are.
If Pudge doesn't want to read the statute, then he should ask himself how did Clinton get the electoral votes of numerous Republican-controlled states (e.g., NJ, PA, OH, MI, etc.) and how did George W. Bush in 2000 get the electoral votes of numerous Democratic-controlled states?
The notion that any state, regardless of which party controls it, is going to make its election returns secret is outside of the realm of real-world politics.
Pudge seems to think that the public favors the current system, and is going to support the most bizarre and extreme and law-bending measures to retain it. Exactly the opposite is the case.
There is no state in the U.S. where the public doesn't already favor a national popular vote by at least 2-to-1.
Washington voters favor a national popular vote by 77% (including 68% of R's, 85% of D's, and 77% of I's).
Posted by: joreko on April 30, 2009 05:53 PM
A Certificate of Ascertainment is issued by each state prior to the canvas of popular votes prior to the safe harbor date (a week before the Electoral College meets).
It's funny you attack me for not reading the statute, and then you proceed to get it so completely wrong. The "safe habor" provision in 3 U.S.C. 5 is not a requirement, despite your implication. Either you're saying it is a requirement when it's not, or you're attacking a straw man, since the fact that it is not a requirement is the point of my argument here, and saying that it is conventionally followed most of the time is obviously therefore irrelevant.
If Pudge doesn't want to read the statute, then he should ask himself how did Clinton get the electoral votes of numerous Republican-controlled states (e.g., NJ, PA, OH, MI, etc.) and how did George W. Bush in 2000 get the electoral votes of numerous Democratic-controlled states?
Um. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. So you not only got the law wrong, but you completely misunderstood my post. I don't even understand how you could so completely misconstrue my post as to believe that it could possibly be related to this.
The notion that any state, regardless of which party controls it, is going to make its election returns secret is outside of the realm of real-world politics.
No, it's not.
Pudge seems to think that the public favors the current system ...
There's no serious evidence to the contrary, of course.
... and is going to support the most bizarre and extreme and law-bending measures to retain it.
You're misrepresenting my argument again. It only takes the legislators of one state to completely break the NPV through this method.
There is no state in the U.S. where the public doesn't already favor a national popular vote by at least 2-to-1.
False.
Washington voters favor a national popular vote by 77% (including 68% of R's, 85% of D's, and 77% of I's).
False. You are implying that a small-sample public opinion poll is a factual representations of the entire citizenry. You're obviously wrong.
No one has the right to disenfranchise an entire state's voters in the presidential race by using something as irrelevant as the national popular vote as a determination of which presidential candidate the electors of the people of this state support. This is so absurd that only a modern Democrat could support such a violation of a voter's right to dictate the electoral college vote from an individual state.
The idea that voters could vote for Candidate A, but have its electors mandated by state law to support Candidate B, is so obscene and so counter to the intent of our US Constitution, that any state government that would make it law is not only NOT a government worthy to represent the people of the state, but clearly incapable from an intellectual standpoint of doing so.
Posted by: Reality on April 30, 2009 06:21 PMWell, it's not just those other states. If NPV goes into effect, ALL states effectively lose their right to vote for the Presidency. And pulling such a legal "trick" as I described -- against another "trick," the NPV compact itself -- is certainly possible when the stakes are so high.
Buddy, your the man!
You post two things and the lib's go nuts!
(-: m
Posted by: Medic/Vet on April 30, 2009 06:56 PMRegardless of any legal basis, if it ever makes it to the US Supreme Court, it will certainly come down to whether constructionists or progressives control the court, or whether the intent of the Constitution still matters or whether it's just an old historical document that holds no value. Right now, it would be up for grabs with Anthony Kennedy flipping the proverbial coin.
Posted by: Reality on April 30, 2009 07:01 PM"One advantage of a national popular vote is that every vote would count regardless of what state it's in."
This seems like a powerful incentive for vote fraud. Under the current system, there isn't much point in "running up the score", as it doesn't matter how much the winning candidate's margin is in any given state. The candidate gets all of the state's electoral votes, whether his margin of victory is one or one million.
But under the NPV system, fraudulent votes cast in one state would be counted towards the national total, resulting in the disenfranchisement of the legitimate voters in all the states.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 30, 2009 07:56 PMWhat am I, chopped liver?
Posted by: demo kid on April 30, 2009 08:11 PMNonsense. The poll samples are far larger than needed to demonstrate, to widely accepted standards of statistical significance, that an overwhelming majority of Americans support popular election of the president. Of course it's not an actual enumeration (is that what you mean by "factual representation"?) of the entire citizenry's opinions, but that's irrelevant.
Anyway, anyone with a whit of common sense realizes that most Americans intuitively prefer popular vote; indeed, many believe we already select our president that way and few understand the electoral college. That doesn't mean they're right, but you're just hurting your cause by ignoring this reality.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2009 08:29 PMThe poll samples are far larger than needed to demonstrate, to widely accepted standards of statistical significance, that an overwhelming majority of Americans support popular election of the president.
False. What polls demonstrate, in fact, is a LIKLIHOOD that people have a certain opinion. And note that this is without being exposed to the actual arguments, such as you should have if we were actually going to change our system of electing the President.
Again: polls do NOT demonstrate that a majority of a population actually have a certain opinion. Only that it is likely that the do.
Anyway, anyone with a whit of common sense realizes that most Americans intuitively prefer popular vote
Exactly why even if you trust the poll numbers, they are irrelevant: when not exposed to the arguments against a popular vote, people will instinctively and reflexively say "sure, we should have a popular vote."
The proposed legislation would have eligible voters (as determined by the laws of each individual state) from accross the country determining who will be elected as presidential electors from Washington and other popular vote compact states.
The eligibility requirements to vote vary somewhat between the states. For example, Washington will now allow convicted felons to vote, so long as they are no longer in prison or under DOC supervision. In many other states, convicted felons lose the right to vote forever, unless they are given clemency by the governor or pardon board.
SO if convicted felons in Washington are allowed to vote for our state's presidential electors, while convicted felons in Mississippi are denied that same right, there could be an equal protection problem.
The same problem could result if a state allows people under 18 to vote or allows aliens to vote. While the constitution generally requires states to allow all citizens over 18 to vote (unless disqualified by crime or lack of mental competency), there is absolutely nothing in the federal law to prohibit a state from lowering the voting age to 16 or allowing aliens to vote.
In such event, there are even greater equal protection problems presented.
Another neat trick -- let's suppose that Texas decides to let every registered voter cast three votes for President. This is perfectly acceptable under the constitution, so long as all Texas voters are treated equally and allowed to cast three votes. As a practical matter, it would not affect who would win Texas in a presidential election, assuming Texas does not go with the popular vote compact.
Imagine how elections officials in different states would react when the official vote totals cast by Republican-leaning Texas are three times the number of actual voters, and three times what the Republican margin would have been if every voter was only allowed one vote ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 30, 2009 10:29 PMIf there is an actual national popular vote, yes. But this compact is outside of federal jurisdiction. Which is a big reason to oppose it: it does not protect peoples' equal protection rights.
... let's suppose that Texas decides to let every registered voter cast three votes for President
Yeah, good thought, that's another way to exploit the fact that "statewide popular vote" is not well-defined in the compact.
Posted by: pudge on April 30, 2009 10:41 PMBasing the value of my vote in Washington on the votes of other states is just unfair. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the current way things work is any better in this regard. Just know that when the NPV crowd touts that "every vote counts", what they are really saying is that "every vote counts, but not equally".
That said, this is still not the approach to take for many of the reasons stated:
1. Even if an 'electoral' majority of states sign on, that doesn't mean a popular majority of states have signed on, and in fact creates a 'what does popular vote mean' problem (inherent in many of the scenarios outlined here)
2. It makes it possible for non-participating states to impact the election negatively without being accountable. Since the compact does not dictate Presidential voting criteria to non-member states, those states can legally do whatever they want to skew the popular numbers. This leads to all kinds of potential problems: if California lets all their illegal immigrants vote, then there is NO WAY for a member state to contest that; we can't force California's voting laws. And in fact, such a compact could lead to some interesting new approaches to federal election eligibility
3. The electoral college mitigates issue 2 by dictating to each state its portion of the presidential election. Is that the best way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But it highlights that what is perceived (and may be) a federal problem is ill-suited to be addressed at a state level.
4. What I am curious about is the plurality/non-majority scenario. Given the strength of political parties thesed days, the likelihood of a non-majority of electoral votes is slim (thanks to the large Congressional Districts and most winner-take-all electoral apportionments). However, 2004 and 2008 were the first >50% 'popular' (we think) results since Bush '88 (I could be mistaken on that). I assume most people would agree that if a candidate only wins 35% of the 'popular' vote, he or she should not become president. But based on the rhetoric about NPV, this would happen, if that is the person with the 'most' votes. So, if we know that >50% should definitely be president, but some low number should definitely NOT, where is the cutoff line for a popular vote? And since NPV does not dictate the number of candidates, nor voting threshholds, there is more uncertainty in the process.
If we really want a closer popular vote race, then there are some better ways to accomplish it:
* Amend the Constitution and create Federal Office voting criteria (if it's going to be a popular vote, then the criteria for voting needs to be established at the Federal level). Really, you would need to probably set up President-only voting days and Federally-managed voting systems (booths/ballots/etc...). It needs to be completely taken out of the states' hands. I'm not necessarily a fan of that, but it is a much more WORKABLE solution than NPV
* Remove the cap on the number of Congressional members, increasing the size of the House. Of course, as a conservative, I would only want to see this in conjunction with a serious pay-cut and about a 4-month Congressional term. Keep the money the same, but add about 5 times as many members. This would increase the electoral college size to more closely match the actual electorate.
Posted by: Erich Z on May 1, 2009 08:55 AMNothing going on with the State?
Anybody go to the PDC actual reports yet for the upcoming local races? Awesome now that you can get reports and navigate much better than even a year ago.
Snohomish County Council people haven't been raking in the moola except for Koster. Somers and Dana seem to have about the same cash- peanuts.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2009 09:07 AMWhere? I saw none. Can you be more specific?
Can we start talking about politics on earth again?
First, this is actually possible, and if I lived in a non-NPV state, I would probably try to make it happen myself. It seems like a great way to combat the NPV.
Second, the point is not to say what will happen, but to expose why this method of attaining the NPV is flawed. There's many ways to break the NPV, some more likely than others, but all of them pointing out the flaws in sidestepping federal law and the Constitution.
This is one of many ways to discuss such extreme measures as the NPV: to try to put it in a larger framework and examine it from all angles, including possible unintended consequences and exploits, even if those events are unlikely.
What you're basically arguing is that because those events are unlikely, we shouldn't discuss them. That's completely backward. You bring up the possibilities in discussion and THEN evaluate the NPV based on the liklihood of those events.
And what's disturbing is that our legislature passed this without having this broad statewide discussion and evaluation. They held a hearing or two in Olympia.
Swatter thinks this is not about our state, but he's wrong.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2009 09:14 AMMajority "popular votes" for President: 2008, 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952.
Those off the top of my head. Couldn't remember Truman. In 1948 he got just under 50 percent. So Truman was the first to not get a majority since Wilson in 1912/1916.
Which means every Republican got a majority in the 20th and 21st centuries (not every election; Nixon and GW Bush were udner 50 percent first election, and over the second), but the only Democrats to do so were FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Obama. Failing to do so were Wilson, Truman, JFK, Clinton.
However, of course, those outcomes could have been different if we had an actual popular vote. So while trivially interesting, not very meaningful.
Regardless, good point about a minority candidate winning. This could take a candidate with no hope of winning the electoral college or the House vote and catapult him to the Presidency, if we have a very fractured election. Consider four candidates: each getting 20-something percent, and most people agreeing with the views of three of them, but also failing to coalesce around a single one (or two), so the extremist minority candidate wins.
Our system protects against this. The NPV compact does not.
(For that matter, the electoral college is just one problem with how we choose the president. Another is the simplistic system of voting for just one candidate, which allows spoilers like Nader to affect the outcome. But that's a whole 'nother topic.)
And let's be honest about something else: equal representation isn't always ideal. I haven't heard anyone object to the Senate system of equal representation for states rather than people. Why not? Just because there's no easy way to get around it?
I know some electoral college defenders may view this post as evidence against the NPV compact. I don't think it is. The imperfect compact is still an improvement over what we have now. And enacting the compact wouldn't necessarily lead to support for changing the Senate -- but if it did, there's no reason anyone should be afraid of debating that issue separately.
Posted by: Bruce on May 1, 2009 09:30 AMExcept that the main problem with the electoral college -- that it is unfair because it is nonproportional and so on -- is exploited to IMPLEMENT the NPV compact. So you still have ALL the problems of the electoral college, and then you add many more.
(For that matter, the electoral college is just one problem with how we choose the president. Another is the simplistic system of voting for just one candidate, which allows spoilers like Nader to affect the outcome. ...
That is not a problem, either. Perot "ruined" the election for Bush in 1992. Good! That is how it SHOULD work. I wanted Bush to win, but Bush failed to recognize and represent the concerns of a significant number of voters. Under a dumb IRV-style voting system Bush would surely have won. He SHOULD NOT have won and it's good he lost. Same with Nader and Gore.
Spoilers SHOULD be able to affect the outcome! This keeps the major candidates in check. Gore and Bush abandoned their base to a significant degree and lost because of it.
I was saying this was a boring board at SP. I was saying there had to be something going on with this State we are in. Two days on the outrageous popular vote bill is enough.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2009 11:48 AMYes, and yet, this something that IS going on with the State we are in. Maybe you meant "something ELSE going on with this State we are in"?
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2009 11:54 AM"...are you suggesting that the way to prevent vote fraud is to ensure that votes don't matter?"
Nope.
But thank-you for conceding my point by trying to change the subject, and thus furnishing us with another fine example of the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 1, 2009 12:34 PM"Let's be honest..."
An admirable sentiment. But the sentence that follows is:
"The majority of Americans want to elect their president by popular vote, but not by enough margin to amend the constitution."
If we're being honest, that sentence should be prefaced by "Polls say that".
Posted by: ewaggin on May 1, 2009 12:40 PMIt's like the people at the Earth Day event that told participants that dihydrogen monoxide killed thousands of people every year, so should it be banned? The majority said "Yes, it should be banned"--banning water, good luck with that!
Posted by: Bill H on May 1, 2009 02:54 PMOf course polls are subject to change based on what people know. And I agree that most people are terribly uninformed about voting systems. I'm not convinced that the ensuing public debate will add more information than misinformation, given the complex and unintuitive nature of voting theory, but hopefully it will. In any case, you will never get everyone to be "fully informed" -- whatever that means -- so you need to let people take responsibility for their own level of knowledge. And of course, this is true of all issues -- voting systems, the Iraq war, the economy, and so on.
Nonetheless, you ignore poll results at your own peril. I simply cited them as an explanation for why the NPV compact was being pursued (successfully so far, I might add) instead of a constitutional amendment.
Posted by: Bruce on May 1, 2009 04:13 PMI'm not convinced that the ensuing public debate will add more information than misinformation
Regardless, you cannot rationally look to poll results as indicative of real public opinion unless such a debate has taken place.
And of course, once again, poll results DO NOT say what people think. It says what they are LIKELY to think.
You needn't work so hard to make a good excuse for not being honest; any excuse will do.
The distinction between what the polls say the majority of people want, and what they actually want, is significant.
If it weren't, then why not, for example, simply pick the President based on the polls, and dispense with the cost and effort of having an election?
Posted by: ewaggin on May 1, 2009 07:53 PMI was surprised to hear Gregoire had signed this without having heard it was coming, too. But really, has the sponsor of a bill -- any bill, in any legislative body in the world -- ever been responsible for holding a debate on it? There are a few Republicans left in Olympia and presumably they are aware of what they're voting on. Where was the opposition? Unless there was something underhanded about the path that this bill followed, I don't see how you can blame the bill's supporters for not debating the issue with themselves.
Posted by: Bruce on May 1, 2009 08:43 PMThere was opposition at the hearings. About 99.99% of the state was not involved in the hearings and about 99.9% didn't know about them. Give or take.
A change to how we elect the President deserves more. Which is a big part of why we HAVE an amendment process as we do, which is part of why it's important to not bypass it like this.
In terms of this needing a constitutional amendment, you may want one for clarity and unity but one is not necessary. The constitution very clearly states that the legislature of each state chooses how to apportion its electoral votes. There is no bar on considering the results of other states. (Your hole is easily addressed by law, not amendment.)
This does not modify the constitution in any way: it is completely consistent with the constitution. Perhaps what is why you quoted "modifying," but instead of quoting the wrong word how about not using it at all?
This is what you do though. Instead of saying that NPV is a bad idea and explaining yourself, you just argue everything on constitutional grounds -- even when those grounds are shaky or (as in this case) completely non-existent.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 4, 2009 01:05 PMNo, it's not. Indeed, it's UNlikely that such a law would be constitutional, as federal law over state elections is generally only acceptable when it pertains to federal interest or individual rights, and the NPV interstate compact is neither.
Futher, even if such a law were passed, surely any state willing to hide their votes would be willing to challenge a federal law pending challenge in the federal courts. And the federal courts would almost surely grant a stay, as the harm of not granting the stay (which potentially violates states' rights) is greater than the harm of granting it (since there is no individual liberty or federal interest issue whatsoever at stake).
In terms of this needing a constitutional amendment, you may want one for clarity and unity but one is not necessary.
For an actual popular vote, yes, it is. The NPV is not an actual popular vote, of course.
There is no bar on considering the results of other states.
And no right to it, either.
This does not modify the constitution in any way
I never said it did.
it is completely consistent with the constitution.
No, it is actuall entirely contrary to the intent of the electoral college.
Instead of saying that NPV is a bad idea and explaining yourself, you just argue everything on constitutional grounds
I've many times say it is a bad idea, and have explained myself. But my point here is not that; my point here is that the WAY it is being done -- bypassing the constitutional amendment process and forcing all states into it -- is bad. Many people can -- and do -- agree with my point here, even if they want a constitutional national popular vote.
You're attacking me for making an argument you don't want me to make. That's stupid, Jensen.
even when those grounds are shaky or (as in this case) completely non-existent.
Except I almost entirely destroyed your argument about federal law stopping this.
Someone whose vote tally was below half that of the combined winner and runner up tallies can be sure he didn't win, regardless of how votes were divided between the top two finishers. As for the winner, if he's awarded an uncontested win he's not entitled to anything more. If the runner-up thinks he should have been awarded the win, he has the right to demand the exact tallies, but if he doesn't want the figures released, so be it.
Posted by: supercat on May 4, 2009 03:25 PMIs it not entirely obvious that having the majority of electoral votes open to manipulation by other states doesn't pertain to the federal interest or individual voter rights? A law as such would not be ruled unconstitutional, that's absurd. The state has no right to have its voting certified voting totals transparent and open. In fact, I would argue that a state refusing to release these numbers would be forced to by nearly any interpretation of the constitution by a federal court (i.e. you cannot enforce equal protection without transparency).
But, of course, another "unconstitutional" argument. Not right, not wrong, but unconstitutional. Which is a fine argument, but it's coming from a man whose view on constitutionally is significantly out of date. Your views on what is constitutional does not reflect how the bodies of the government would actually rule -- your views are theoretical and do not function in the real world.
Futher, even if such a law were passed, surely any state willing to hide their votes would be willing to challenge a federal law pending challenge in the federal courts. And the federal courts would almost surely grant a stay, as the harm of not granting the stay (which potentially violates states' rights) is greater than the harm of granting it (since there is no individual liberty or federal interest issue whatsoever at stake).
The harm of granting a stay is an illegitimate presidential election. You have to be incredibly out of touch to believe that any court would effectively stay a presidential election on the vague principle of "states' rights." And what sort of state would launch that lawsuit -- would its constituents really buy that not releasing the vote totals so other states can't follow their obligations is an American ideal? Is that why we've fought all these wars and left the British Empire with our blood? So Texas could disenfranchise Washington and California voters?
Ridiculous. No attn gen nor any sec of state would launch that suit. If they did, the court wouldn't stay a law and throw the election into chaos. And when the Supreme Court heard it, they would never rule that hiding your vote totals in a vindictive way was anything approaching constitutional -- never mind the federal law itself which would easily pass constitutional muster.
And no right to it, either.
It is a truism that all rights not specifically given to the Federal Government in the constitution are granted to the state governments (within the confines of equal protection).
You are wrong. Rights are not enumerates to the states. The states are given the right to consider other state's voting totals. Again, you are wrong.
No, it is actuall entirely contrary to the intent of the electoral college.
That intent was codified by the original 13 states and not the constitution. The constitution is intentionally open ended about these electors. It is plain as day. If the framers didn't intend for states to choose their electors in a manner they see fit then that would have been codified in the constitution. It was not.
You're attacking me for making an argument you don't want me to make. That's stupid, Jensen.
I have no dog in the NPV fight. I'm glad you've made posts about the merits of NPV in the past, but that's not relevant. I was addressing this particular post as well as your pattern of labeling ideas you disagree with as unconstitutional. Instead of presenting arguments and facts, you attempt to use truisms to disallow policy consideration (without an amendment).
That's a dumb tactic coming from you, considering your views on what are constitutional will never be reflected in our courts. Practically, your "truisms" are anything but.
Except I almost entirely destroyed your argument about federal law stopping this.
Not a bit, pudge. If the majority of electors were NPV electors, the federal law would absolutely reflect that change to ensure fair elections. And frankly, whether it is constitutional or not (and it is), the Supreme Court would never put the country in the situation where its presidential elections were ineffectual ("stayed"). That would be far more damaging to the country than forcing Texas to release its certified voting totals to the country.
You are factually wrong, you are practically wrong, and you are still out of touch with any sort of modern constitutional interpretation. But nice try.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 4, 2009 04:17 PMThat should read: The state has no right to not have its voting certified voting totals transparent and open.
The arguments behind that fall outside of the confines of my post.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 4, 2009 04:19 PMIs it not entirely obvious that having the majority of electoral votes open to manipulation by other states doesn't pertain to the federal interest or individual voter rights?
You really think it is rational to say that because YOUR state decides to base its electoral votes on MY state, that it therefore obligates MY state to tell you a damned thing? You're spouting gibberish.
A law as such would not be ruled unconstitutional
Most likely, yes, it would.
The state has no right to [not] have its voting certified voting totals transparent and open.
Not permanently, no. But until those E.C. totals have to be reported to the federal government? Yes, it does. Absolutely.
In fact, I would argue that a state refusing to release these numbers would be forced to by nearly any interpretation of the constitution by a federal court
You'd utterly fail in that argument.
i.e. you cannot enforce equal protection without transparency
You don't need to have that transparency in the few weeks between election day and the reporting to the electoral college.
We've already talked about how the state would have to give up "safe harbor" to do this. There's lots of time between when the E.C. reports its results, and when the House accepts those results. If there's a question, the Congress could examine that in the weeks between reporting of the E.C. votes, and the counting of the votes in Congress. There's no serious federal interest here in forcing an earlier date.
Not right, not wrong, but unconstitutional.
Something unconstitutional IS wrong. That you seem to disagree with that only bolsters my claim that liberals hate the rule of law.
Which is a fine argument, but it's coming from a man whose view on constitutionally is significantly out of date.
First, you're wrong. A majority of the Supreme Court agrees with me. To say that's "out of date" is nonsense. Second, you do realize this is an ad hominem fallacy, right?
Your views on what is constitutional does not reflect how the bodies of the government would actually rule -- your views are theoretical and do not function in the real world.
Tell that to Scalia, and Alito, and Thomas, and Roberts ...
You have to be incredibly out of touch to believe that any court would effectively stay a presidential election
No, I never implied in any way that a presidential election would be stayed. You are completely misusing the word "stay."
And what sort of state would launch that lawsuit
You have it backward, as usual. It's not the state that would sue. The state would refuse to follow the unconstitutional law and then BE sued by the federal government.
would its constituents really buy that not releasing the vote totals so other states can't follow their obligations is an American ideal?
Shrug. I never thought any constituents would buy that giving up their state's right to vote for President would be a good thing. But here we are.
Is that why we've fought all these wars and left the British Empire with our blood? So Texas could disenfranchise Washington and California voters?
If you really think that the mere act of Texas not releasing the record of its votes until after the E.C. meets disenfranchises voters in OTHER states, then that is the sole fault of the people of those other states, who put themselves in the position of allowing other states to have that power over them in the first place.
I am reminded of a quote from Garrison Keillor: "Don't shoot your parents and ask for mercy because you're an orphan."
It is a truism that all rights not specifically given to the Federal Government in the constitution are granted to the state governments (within the confines of equal protection).
You just said above that this is "out of date." Make up your mind.
The states are given the right to consider other state's voting totals. Again, you are wrong.
I am trying to figure out if you are intentionally misrepresenting me, or if you really didn't understand what I wrote. Regardless, given the context, it is obvious that I was talking about the right of some states to force other states to provide access to their vote totals -- not their right to use those totals once reported -- and no, I am not wrong at all in this.
If the framers didn't intend for states to choose their electors in a manner they see fit then that would have been codified in the constitution. It was not.
What the framers intended was for there to NOT be a national popular vote. Explicitly.
I'm glad you've made posts about the merits of NPV in the past, but that's not relevant.
Then you shouldn't have brought it up.
I was addressing this particular post as well as your pattern of labeling ideas you disagree with as unconstitutional.
When I believe they are unconstitutional, yes, I do. So what? I never said NPV was unconstitutional. I've been quite clear all along that I believe it is constitutional. The only thing I said would likely be unconstitutional is a law requiring the states to give results before the E.C. meets.
And in this, your argument that I have "a pattern of labeling ideas I disagree with as unconstitutional" is undermined, else I surely would have called NPV unconstitutional. Oops!
Instead of presenting arguments and facts, you attempt to use truisms to disallow policy consideration
As I have already said, my argument here is NOT that NPV is wrong, but that NPV through interstate compact is wrong. You are upset with me because I am not making a particular argument against something I am not even arguing against. That's stupid, Jensen.
We can have a discussion about NPV itself. That is not this discussion, as far as I am concerned. I am only discussing NPV through interstate compact, because THAT is the ACTUAL ISSUE before us.
If the majority of electors were NPV electors, the federal law would absolutely reflect that change to ensure fair elections.
And -- again -- at most, the legal process would extend past the date required for posting the E.C. results anyway.
the Supreme Court would never put the country in the situation where its presidential elections were ineffectual ("stayed")
And that issue would not be before the Supreme Court, so this is meaningless. The Supreme Court WOULD NOT consider the effect that Texas' refusal to report has on Washington and California, as that is entirely irrelevant to any federal law.
You can't have it both ways. You can't pass this via interstate compact, bypassing the Constitution, and then expect the federal courts to protect the integrity of that compact.
(Also, that is not what "stayed" means. When courts "stay" something, they *pause* it. So when I said that something would be "stayed," what I meant was that the feds' attempt to force compliance with the law would be stayed by the court, pending result of the trial.)
You are factually wrong, you are practically wrong, and you are still out of touch with any sort of modern constitutional interpretation.
False on all counts.
Yes. No court in the world would allow for the results of the election to be so obviously open to manipulation.
Look, the Supreme Court is more complex than you believe. They do not simply decide whether something is constitutional or not but also look at the effects that their ruling has on the country. You are completely delusional if you think the Supreme Court would over-turn a federal law that would be necessary to hold a sane election. The Court is not in the business of launching the country into crisis.
The Court would have rule something else entirely: that states cannot use the results over other states in determining their apportionment of electors. This is explicitly constitutional.
You just said above that this is "out of date." Make up your mind.
I never said that. Your views about what is enumerated to the Federal Government is out-of-date and out-of-touch. You are of course wrong that the state does have a right to consider other states, since the constitution specifically says that the state legislature determines the formula for their electors (within the limits of equal protection).
What the framers intended was for there to NOT be a national popular vote. Explicitly.
The constitution does not say that.
You can't pass this via interstate compact, bypassing the Constitution
Oh so I guess any interstate agreement bypasses the constitution? Give me a break. The constitution says legislatures decide how electors are decided. The constitution gives legislatures the rights to enter into interstate compacts.
and then expect the federal courts to protect the integrity of that compact
If the majority of electors had this compact and Texas decided to with hold their certified voting totals as you specify on your OP, courts would compel them to do so simply to ensure a peaceful transition of power. That is what would happen, because again, the Court would not launch the country into chaos to prove your limited vision of federal powers are finally right.
Now, if before that point there were Federal Law compelling Texas to release its results a week before the Electoral College, I personally believe that would easily pass constitutional muster.
(Also, that is not what "stayed" means. When courts "stay" something, they *pause* it. So when I said that something would be "stayed," what I meant was that the feds' attempt to force compliance with the law would be stayed by the court, pending result of the trial.)
I know what stayed means -- I am saying that if you stay the law then the election doesn't work. If you stay the aforementioned federal law, you cannot have legitimate election results since the majority of electors cannot be accurately placed.
Guess what wouldn't be stayed? The state laws that form the NPV compact. So those states couldn't apportion their electors according to state law.
Staying is not something that always happens. In this case, the fringe constitutional arguments are less important than ensuring a peaceful transition of power.
False on all counts.
Nuh-uh.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 5, 2009 11:16 AMThe alternative is to disenfranchise the majority of voters in the country. That principle is far more grounded in our constitutional republic than the silly right to with-hold vote totals for the most cynical reason imaginable. I have no doubt that this case would be rightly argued in terms of "Rights of WA voters" vs. "Rights of TX state." I think people have more rights than states. You may believe that from the constitutional perspective, states have more rights than people. I believe that the Court would rule in favor of peaceful and fair elections that fall within the guidelines specified in the constitution at the small and marginal cost of requiring TX to certify its results a week earlier and post the results openly.
The alternative is to over-turn the way that 270+ worth of electors are apportioned after an election.
Keep in mind that if this ever passes with the 270+ electors, the country we live in will be a different place. The Supreme Court will have a different make-up and will be grounded in a different reality than today (for me) or 190 years ago (for you). Sorry, sorry :)
Posted by: John Jensen on May 5, 2009 11:23 AMFalse. No one is disenfranchised here, at all. You're completely making that up. You have not provided the slightest backing for that claim.
I have no doubt that this case would be rightly argued in terms of "Rights of WA voters" vs. "Rights of TX state."
That is nonsense. It IS NOT POSSIBLE for Texas to take away the rights of WA voters in the NPV compact, as long as they follow their own law, and the Constitution, to arrive at their chosen electors.
I think people have more rights than states.
And I think states have more rights than the federal government.
I believe that the Court would rule in favor of peaceful and fair elections that fall within the guidelines specified in the constitution at the small and marginal cost of requiring TX to certify its results a week earlier and post the results openly.
You're spouting gibberish. You fail to address the fact that such a court ruling would need to find a federal interest in protecting the integrity of the NPV compact, when in fact, according to YOU (and I don't disagree), the NPV compact is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Again: you can't have it both ways. You lose.
And this is WHY -- as even demo kid agreed -- the NPV compact is a bad idea. And why you're a fool to attack me for arguing against it on these grounds.
By the EXACT SAME STANDARD, the NPV could be thrown out. Don't be such a fool so as to argue against yourself. If it is "manipulation" to prevent another state from basing its E.C. votes on yours by delaying publication of the results by several weeks, then surely it is "manipulation" to nullify the electoral college by using it to create a psuedo-NPV.
Look, the Supreme Court is more complex than you believe.
No, in fact, it is not. It is exactly as complex as I believe.
They do not simply decide whether something is constitutional or not but also look at the effects that their ruling has on the country.
Yes, which is why yours is such a losing argument. The Supreme Court would not take sides with one group trying to force another into an anti-constitutional system of election. It would recognize that this sort of extra-constitutional, anti-constitutional effort is the problem, NOT the states trying to protect THEIR rights, and those of their citizens to participate in voting for ELECTORS.
If it comes right down to it, if they had to pick sides in this case, there is no doubt that they would side with Texas over Washington, because Washington is the one being the aggressor and trying to change the function of the election in Texas. Of course, it would not come to that: the Court would simply decline to force Texas to do anything, as there is no federal interest in doing so.
You are completely delusional if you think the Supreme Court would over-turn a federal law that would be necessary to hold a sane election.
You're delusional if you think the Court would agree with you that this law is necessary to hold a sane election. Remember, it's the NPV people who are forcing the issue here. If the result is an insane election, it's the obvious fault of the NPV states.
The Court is not in the business of launching the country into crisis.
Again. it's the NPV people doing that, in fact. And there is no rational way to argue that what I propose would, in any way, create any crisis of any kind. What I propose would force the states back to the constitutional status quo; how is that a "crisis"?
The Court would have rule something else entirely: that states cannot use the results over other states in determining their apportionment of electors.
Oh please stop making stupid things up. The Court would have to rule no such thing. It would only have to rule that states cannot force other states to release their results in order to do so.
I never said that.
Yes, in fact, you did.
Your views about what is enumerated to the Federal Government is out-of-date and out-of-touch.
Yes, you keep saying that. But then immediately afterward, you asserted my views are true when you said, "It is a truism that all rights not specifically given to the Federal Government in the constitution are granted to the state governments (within the confines of equal protection)." This is the essence of my "out of date" views on the Constitution, but you say they are true.
You are of course wrong that the state does [not] have a right to consider other states
You are lying when you continue to insist I ever said that.
What the framers intended was for there to NOT be a national popular vote. Explicitly.
The constitution does not say that.
Correct. So? The Constitution does not tell us their intents, usually. The debates and other contemporary documents do. And they explicitly opposed a national popular vote. There's no question on this.
Oh so I guess any interstate agreement bypasses the constitution?
No. Stop being an idiot. I never implied any such thing.
If the majority of electors had this compact and Texas decided to with hold their certified voting totals as you specify on your OP, courts would compel them to do so simply to ensure a peaceful transition of power.
Nonsense.
Look, you think that the states would have to file lawsuits to not present their election results. You do not know what a "stay" is. You do not understand safe harbor. You do not understand the Constitution or my views on it, as you think they are "out of date" despite you asserting they are true, and despite a majority of the Supreme Court agreeing with them. You on the one hand say the federal courts have no say in the NPV compact, and then on the other say the federal courts would defend the integrity of it. You give no reason for us to think this would happen, and you offer no rebuttal to my arguments for why they would not. You claim that the status quo of the electoral college is "chaos" and "crisis."
You are consistently wrong and don't back up any of your claims. Why should anyone listen to you?
If you stay the aforementioned federal law, you cannot have legitimate election results since the majority of electors cannot be accurately placed.
That is -- as YOU keep telling us -- up to the states to decide. Not the federal government. Again: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
What's pathetic is that while I've proven your claims about me are wrong -- that I try to argue something is unconstitutional just because I disagree with it -- it's pretty obvious right now, given the inconsistency of your arguments, that you don't care about the Constitution and are only out to either a. put the NPV in place at any cost, or b. argue for the sake of arguing.
The federal interest is having a valid election. You spout all this gibberish and fail to accept that.
The court couldn't consider NPV constitutionality in a case filed in federal court, which jurisdiction about the federal law would be filed. Pudge, why do you play expert?
The NPV compact may not be a good idea, but there are not constitutional barriers like you naively pretend.
No, in fact, it is not. It is exactly as complex as I believe.
Good one.
Yes, you keep saying that. But then immediately afterward, you asserted my views are true when you said, "It is a truism that all rights not specifically given to the Federal Government in the constitution are granted to the state governments (within the confines of equal protection)." This is the essence of my "out of date" views on the Constitution, but you say they are true.
Do I really need to explain everything to you? Are you that dense?
You think the federal government has a handful of enumerated rights. Myself, the Supreme Court, the Executive, and the Legislative branches think they have more enumerated rights than you.
Everyone agrees that those rights not enumerated fall to the state. In this sense, Mr. Density, there is no disagreement: we both know that the state has the right to consider other state's voting totals even though it is not enumerated.
Let's follow this conversation:
Me: You are of course wrong that the state does [not] have a right to consider other states
Pudge: You are lying when you continue to insist I ever said that.
But of course, you are completely wrong. In your previous:
Me: There is no bar on considering the results of other states.
Pudge: And no right to it, either.
I'm not lying pudge, you just didn't present your point correctly. You meant to say that states don't have the right to compel other states to release their results. But you didn't say that.
You're so poor at presenting your argument that I have to fill in the gaps for you, or expect to be called a liar or a fool.
Correct. So? The Constitution does not tell us their intents, usually. The debates and other contemporary documents do. And they explicitly opposed a national popular vote. There's no question on this.
That's a good point, pudge, but utterly irrelevant. Even you aren't arguing that NPV is unconstitutional.
If you have debate and other documents showing the founders intended that vote counts be kept secret and uncertified until the electoral college, then this would apply to a federal law as such.
That is -- as YOU keep telling us -- up to the states to decide. Not the federal government. Again: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
I'm not having it both ways, the world is just more complex than you pretend on the internet. There are two levels of government of interest. The states decide to enter into NPV, the federal legislature ensures a functional election by ensuring NPV is possible.
You argue that the federal government has no right to compel TX to release its certified voting results before the meeting of the electors. I argue that the federal government has very little in its path from requiring this. Your argument is to through the word "constitution" around. I have the Voting Rights Act, for example, showing that the federal legislature has a history of regulating federal elections and their results.
Oh, and you're dumb.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 5, 2009 04:45 PMI'm not arguing to argue. Your understanding of the constitution is naive and wrong, and you shouldn't bash any idea you disagree with as "extra-constitutional" as a pejorative or as "unconstitutional." Instead of arguing about your ideals or principles or good governance, you do no critical thinking and point to a document which you [no longer, circa 1934] understand.
You're an abrasive jerk to anyone you argue with and consistently argue with the position of authority of constitutionality. You have your opinions, you do not have the constitution. There is much disagreement over its interpretation, berth, and breadth. Those are interesting conversations to have (such as this one which outlines a scenario nigh impossible but is legally fascinating), and your arguments of authority ("facts", "constitution") prevent you from fully testing your beliefs and your understanding of the constitution.
My tone is a mere parody of you, before you note the obvious irony.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 5, 2009 04:52 PMWhich you have failed to show does not exist in this situation.
The court couldn't consider NPV constitutionality in a case filed in federal court, which jurisdiction about the federal law would be filed.
I never implied it should. Ever.
Pudge, why do you play expert?
Ad hominem fallacy.
The NPV compact may not be a good idea, but there are not constitutional barriers like you naively pretend.
I never implied there were. Ever. In fact, I have explicitly stated the opposite, to you, several times now, such that I am forced to conclude you are lying.
You think the federal government has a handful of enumerated rights. Myself, the Supreme Court, the Executive, and the Legislative branches think they have more enumerated rights than you.
False. The Supreme Court agrees with me on this. And every other educated and honest person does, too.
But of course, you are completely wrong.
You're lying.
I'm not lying pudge
Yes, you are. I already responded to this, and I will repeat it here: I am trying to figure out if you are intentionally misrepresenting me, or if you really didn't understand what I wrote. Regardless, given the context, it is obvious that I was talking about the right of some states to force other states to provide access to their vote totals -- not their right to use those totals once reported
I now amend that slightly: I am no longer trying to figure out if you are intentionally misrepresenting me. The fact that the context made my meaning obvious, and you got it wrong, is one thing. But when I explained it and you continued to get it wrong, it became clear you are just lying.
You meant to say that states don't have the right to compel other states to release their results. But you didn't say that.
First, in the context, yes, I did. Second, I explicitly clarified that point in the next comment. So: you're lying.
Even you aren't arguing that NPV is unconstitutional.
That is true, despite your lies that I am. But so what? The context of this particular argument was my claim that this is against the INTENT of the electoral college. You argued against me, but now you hilariously say "That's a good point, but irrelevant." Except it speaks directly to the point I was making, that you had disagreed with, but now you apparently agree with.
I'm not having it both ways
But you're trying to.
You argue that the federal government has no right to compel TX to release its certified voting results before the meeting of the electors.
Which is obviously true.
I argue that the federal government has very little in its path from requiring this.
Other than the Constitution, which guarantees the states the right to determine how their electors are selected. Oops!
Your argument is to through the word "constitution" around.
Your argument is to make up things that don't exist.
I have the Voting Rights Act, for example, showing that the federal legislature has a history of regulating federal elections and their results.
Only to the extent necessary to ensure the right to vote is not violated, and federal law ALREADY does this by saying you have safe harbor if you get them in a week early. Your argument is that EXISTING federal law is not sufficient to protect our right to vote, even though it's worked well for a long time.
Oh, and you're dumb.
Then you should feel terrible for getting slapped silly by me.
Your understanding of the constitution is naive and wrong
Yes, you keep saying that. And yet a majority of the Supreme Court agrees with it, despite your lies that it does not.
you shouldn't bash any idea you disagree with as "extra-constitutional" as a pejorative or as "unconstitutional."
As already proven, I do not. Stop lying.
Instead of arguing about your ideals or principles or good governance, you do no critical thinking and point to a document which you [no longer, circa 1934] understand.
You can assert this all you like, but you have done nothing to demonstrate it. And in fact, the way you worded this proves you don't understand what you're talking about: you actually claim that the meaning of the Constitution changed at some point. This is obvious nonsense. Never has a Supreme Court ever agreed with that. Just ask Felix Frankfurter, who was on the Supreme Court around that time (slightly later), who asserted that the Constitution's meaning does not change to follow what the Supreme Court says it means.
You're an abrasive jerk to anyone you argue with
Absolutely false. I am only an abrasive jerk to people who are abrasive jerks. There are many examples of people I argue with amicably, including demo kid (usually) and our libertarian friend Bruce Guthrie, not to mention many conservatives and Republicans around here with whom I disagree regularly.
If I am a jerk to you, it is only because you were a jerk first. This does not condone my behavior in any way, but it does mean you have no grounds from which to complain.
and consistently argue with the position of authority of constitutionality.
A very good place to argue from.
You have your opinions, you do not have the constitution.
Shrug. Argue against my views, then. Feel free. I am not optimistic for you, I fear, however, since you get so much wrong in everything else you say.
There is much disagreement over its interpretation, berth, and breadth.
Yes, often because people -- like you, like Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, like President Obama -- hate the rule of law. Literally. You would rather have laws moldable by people in black robes. This is anathema to liberty and justice, of course.
What makes my side so simple is that the law is, literally, on my side. What's on your side is a vapid philosophical argument that the law doesn't matter.
your arguments of authority ("facts", "constitution") prevent you from fully testing your beliefs and your understanding of the constitution.
How would you know? You obviously know very little of these things. Again: you think the Supreme Court disagrees with my views, when a clear majority agrees with me most of the time (and four agree with me almost all of the time).
You're good for a laugh, but you really don't know anything: this is proven by the fact that you many times had to lie about my positions to make your case; you got many things simply wrong; and you refused to address the majority of my arguments against your claims.