• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

 
 
 
Toni said:
TomC said:
Shadowy Man said:
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
Click to expand...
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
Click to expand...
The local people could NOT do what they wanted because the state DOT refused. A portion of a road was also considered a highway although it was in an exclusively residential area surrounded by residential area. Except for some churches and schools, Plus local felt compelled to defer to state DOT. Until that kid got killed. Btw, I snatched my own kid out of harms way more than once.
Click to expand...
Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.
 
Each state is a constituency for the senate - it has two senators to represent it.

Each district is a constituency for congress - it has one congressman to represent it.

Each nation is a constituency for the president - it has one president to represent it.

Every voter within a single constituency should have a vote of equal weight in a representative democracy. This happens for senators and congressmen, but for obsolete historical reasons, does not happen for presidents.

And people who can immediately see the problem with a suggestion that each voter should have their vote weighted by how many kids they have, or how many cars, or how many dollars, or the floor area of their residence, seem for no good reason to think it's OK to let voters in presidential elections have a vote weighted by the population density of the state in which they live.

It's bizarre.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Toni said:
TomC said:
Shadowy Man said:
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
Click to expand...
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
Click to expand...
The local people could NOT do what they wanted because the state DOT refused. A portion of a road was also considered a highway although it was in an exclusively residential area surrounded by residential area. Except for some churches and schools, Plus local felt compelled to defer to state DOT. Until that kid got killed. Btw, I snatched my own kid out of harms way more than once.
Click to expand...
Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.
Click to expand...
It’s the same thing, just different scale. Another example talked about on this board is whether pipelines that go through geologically fragile areas and/or reservation land/historical or cultural sites should be allowed. People in those areas largely say no. People from other states whose land, water, homes won’t be affected might think it’s a great idea.

I don’t think that people in urban areas should be able to force their view of the best land use in rural people who live in the area the urbanites want to impose their control. I don’t think that rural people should be able to skittle state or federal funds for urban infrastructure.
 
Toni said:
Shadowy Man said:
Toni said:
TomC said:
Shadowy Man said:
It would be worth exactly the same. One person one vote.
Click to expand...
That's the point.
What possible important concerns could people in Wyoming have that people in Illinois don't?

@Toni, I agree that the traffic business you described was a big problem. But it looks completely like a local issue. Local folks needed to deal with it, not the state or federal government.
Tom
Click to expand...
The local people could NOT do what they wanted because the state DOT refused. A portion of a road was also considered a highway although it was in an exclusively residential area surrounded by residential area. Except for some churches and schools, Plus local felt compelled to defer to state DOT. Until that kid got killed. Btw, I snatched my own kid out of harms way more than once.
Click to expand...
Those sound like state issues so how would you relate that to whether a President is elected by the states versus by the people. Will these issues get solved better if the President, who doesn’t legislate, is more elected by Wyomingites than Californians? The legislature (Congress) would still have the same local representation it currently has.
Click to expand...
It’s the same thing, just different scale. Another example talked about on this board is whether pipelines that go through geologically fragile areas and/or reservation land/historical or cultural sites should be allowed. People in those areas largely say no. People from other states whose land, water, homes won’t be affected might think it’s a great idea.

I don’t think that people in urban areas should be able to force their view of the best land use in rural people who live in the area the urbanites want to impose their control. I don’t think that rural people should be able to skittle state or federal funds for urban infrastructure.
Click to expand...
And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?
 
Shadowy Man said:
And how does electing the President by popular vote instead of the electoral college effect this particular scenario do you propose?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The kind of voters, conservative "Drill Baby Drill!" Republican(Teaparty) that facilitate oil pipelines are typically the rural voters who currently have way out size representation in the EC.
Tom
 
bilby said:
Each state is a constituency for the senate - it has two senators to represent it.

Each district is a constituency for congress - it has one congressman to represent it.

Each nation is a constituency for the president - it has one president to represent it.

Every voter within a single constituency should have a vote of equal weight in a representative democracy. This happens for senators and congressmen, but for obsolete historical reasons, does not happen for presidents.

And people who can immediately see the problem with a suggestion that each voter should have their vote weighted by how many kids they have, or how many cars, or how many dollars, or the floor area of their residence, seem for no good reason to think it's OK to let voters in presidential elections have a vote weighted by the population density of the state in which they live.

It's bizarre.
Click to expand...
I am deeply confused that anyone here sees inequity in the proposal. Not everyone gets what they want, regardless. At least the proposal maximizes the number of voters who get what they wanted.
So simple …
 
Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.
 
ZiprHead said:
Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the effort for fairness doesn't need every state legislature to accomplish the goal. It's most of the way there now. States with 270 EC delegates or more is all that is necessary for an American revolution.

This won't disenfranchise anybody. The current system does. My vote doesn't matter because I live in a heavily Teaparty state. I believe that the most important outcome of equality in Presidential elections is a huge increase in voter engagement and turnout.
Tom
 
TomC said:
ZiprHead said:
Jacob Soboroff interviewed an expert on the subject of the OP. He said it's not nearly so cut and dried easy to implement and could have its own pitfalls. State constitutions, Attorneys Generals who could fight it between the vote counting and the electoral vote counting that could stop the votes from being recorded at all.

I tried to see if the segment was posted on YT yet but no.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the effort for fairness doesn't need every state legislature to accomplish the goal. It's most of the way there now. States with 270 EC delegates or more is all that is necessary for an American revolution.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. That was actually addressed in the video. Only two states to go.

That doesn't negate the problems the expert reported.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom