Connecticut moves toward Supporting the National Popular Vote initiative

[Copernicus]

Just because the Constitution grants more federal powers than the Articles of Confederation does not mean that the Constitution isn't a limited grant of powers with the rest belonging to the state or the people. It just grants a greater number of limited powers.

That is an ideological position. A more realistic one is that the interpretation of the Constitution is what matters in the end, and people are the ones to interpret just what the limits of government power and personal rights are under its loose and vaguely worded guidelines. The intention behind the Electoral College was at least twofold: to prevent the public "mob" from electing an incompetent demagogue and to protect the institution of slavery in southern states. It has so far failed on both counts. It led to a horrific, bloody civil war in the 19th century, and it installed the worst incompetent demagogue as President in the 21st century. The amendment process is effectively broken, so the National Popular Vote Initiative, weird as it sounds, is probably our best option for restoring democracy in America.

 

[Elixir]

...the interpretation of the Constitution is what matters in the end, and people are the ones to interpret just what the limits of government power and personal rights are under its loose and vaguely worded guidelines.

I think we have a real problem here. The people who are actually assigned the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution are the 9 people on the Supreme Court. And they're part of the Federal Government. So when a Citizens United offer comes up that gives people in the Federal Government (POLITICIANS) carte blanche to collect unlimited funds to influence them, of course they're gonna green-light it. So here we are.

 

[Copernicus]

...the interpretation of the Constitution is what matters in the end, and people are the ones to interpret just what the limits of government power and personal rights are under its loose and vaguely worded guidelines.

I think we have a real problem here. The people who are actually assigned the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution are the 9 people on the Supreme Court. And they're part of the Federal Government. So when a Citizens United offer comes up that gives people in the Federal Government (POLITICIANS) carte blanche to collect unlimited funds to influence them, of course they're gonna green-light it. So here we are.

SCOTUS has made bad choices in the past. They have also reversed themselves, too. Woodrow Wilson called SCOTUS "a constitutional convention in continuous session". So-called "strict constructionists" who claim to follow "original intent" almost never do when it comes to political policies that they favor or disfavor. Usually, such language is intended to dismiss interpretations that lead to policies they disapprove of. There are a lot of policies and practices based on tradition that having nothing at all to do with the Constitution--e.g. the filibuster in the Senate, policies designed to promote or preserve religious dominance, protection of gun ownership as an individual right that has no relation to militia duty, official government support for the Republican and Democratic parties to the exclusion of others, etc. Occasionally, SCOTUS will overturn policies and traditions, when it is filled with people who want to change the law. Citizens United was a really good case in point--totally unprecedented granting of rights to corporations as "persons". Nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[lpetrich]

The amendment process is effectively broken, so the National Popular Vote Initiative, weird as it sounds, is probably our best option for restoring democracy in America.

That's not the only thing that we could use. Instant runoff voting and proportional representation, for instance.

As to amending the US Constitution, its creators recognized that it might need to be amended, but they failed to realize how difficult the process would be. The procedure is set forth in Article V:

1. 2/3 of both the House and the Senate must support an amendment, followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
2. 2/3 of the state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention ("Con-Con"), which would then make amendments.

Only the first procedure has ever been used. The second one is a political joker in the deck, because there is nothing about whether a Con-Con would be confined to whatever its original agenda was supposed to be. Like balancing the budget, a something proposed for a Con-Con. Like a Con-Con deciding to repeal the Second Amendment or to mandate higher weighting of low-density areas in representation or other such things.

 

[lpetrich]

As one might expect: Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News -- it seems rather disapproving.

This issue has become a partisan issue, sad to say, with many Democrats supporting it and many Republicans opposing it.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are a lot of policies and practices based on tradition that having nothing at all to do with the Constitution--e.g. the filibuster in the Senate, policies designed to promote or preserve religious dominance, protection of gun ownership as an individual right that has no relation to militia duty, official government support for the Republican and Democratic parties to the exclusion of others, etc. Occasionally, SCOTUS will overturn policies and traditions, when it is filled with people who want to change the law. Citizens United was a really good case in point--totally unprecedented granting of rights to corporations as "persons". Nowhere in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government gets to censor you provided it chooses to define what you say as "corporate speech". CU v FEC did not grant rights to corporations as "persons". That's a popular misrepresentation. Opponents of the decision repeat it over and over, but they can't actually quote the decision saying anything of the sort.

As far as the decision being unprecedented is concerned, check out this case. If you are of the view that the First Amendment should not be construed to protect corporations from censorship, does that mean you feel "New York Times Co v United States" was wrongly decided? Do you feel the court ought to have allowed Richard Nixon to bar the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers? The New York Times is a corporation. Fans of censoring Citizens United should be careful what they wish for.

 

[Copernicus]

There are a lot of policies and practices based on tradition that having nothing at all to do with the Constitution--e.g. the filibuster in the Senate, policies designed to promote or preserve religious dominance, protection of gun ownership as an individual right that has no relation to militia duty, official government support for the Republican and Democratic parties to the exclusion of others, etc. Occasionally, SCOTUS will overturn policies and traditions, when it is filled with people who want to change the law. Citizens United was a really good case in point--totally unprecedented granting of rights to corporations as "persons". Nowhere in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government gets to censor you provided it chooses to define what you say as "corporate speech". CU v FEC did not grant rights to corporations as "persons". That's a popular misrepresentation. Opponents of the decision repeat it over and over, but they can't actually quote the decision saying anything of the sort.

As far as the decision being unprecedented is concerned, check out this case. If you are of the view that the First Amendment should not be construed to protect corporations from censorship, does that mean you feel "New York Times Co v United States" was wrongly decided? Do you feel the court ought to have allowed Richard Nixon to bar the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers? The New York Times is a corporation. Fans of censoring Citizens United should be careful what they wish for.

Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that "press" refers to any publication, whereas "speech" implies an individual (unless you are thinking of a Greek chorus or some such thing). There is nothing there to suggest that "speech" is equivalent to a private group of individuals or even a single individual giving money to a politician to implement a policy to favor them. Where does "speech" equate to "money"? Otherwise, there could be no laws against bribery. In fact, it is questionable whether laws against bribery are enforceable anymore, thanks to this "Citizens United" decision. Where does the line get drawn? It is perfectly clear that corporations are not granted the same rights as individuals, so what is there in the text of that amendment that equates "speech" with money?

As for the "Pentagon Papers", it seems very clear to me that the decision has nothing to do with the "speech" part of the First Amendment. It is about reference to the "press". The "press" is clearly an institution. The reference to "speech" is not at all clearly related to commercial entities.
So your equivalence of the two is not valid, IMO.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that "press" refers to any publication, whereas "speech" implies an individual (unless you are thinking of a Greek chorus or some such thing).

Well, "Hillary: The Movie" is a publication. The SCOTUS hasn't ever made much of a distinction between FoS and FotP. There's nothing in the First Amendment to suggest the government making an arbitrary restriction makes the freedom go away for speech but not the press. And that's what a "no corporations" restriction is. Corporate organization is a type of technology. Corporations don't talk; people talk using corporations. If the government gets away with "You can't speak your mind using a corporation because corporations don't have rights.", how is that different from "You can't speak your mind using a tape recorder because tape recorders don't have rights."?

There is nothing there to suggest that "speech" is equivalent to a private group of individuals or even a single individual giving money to a politician to implement a policy to favor them. Where does "speech" equate to "money"? Otherwise, there could be no laws against bribery. In fact, it is questionable whether laws against bribery are enforceable anymore, thanks to this "Citizens United" decision. Where does the line get drawn? It is perfectly clear that corporations are not granted the same rights as individuals, so what is there in the text of that amendment that equates "speech" with money?

I take it you haven't actually read the Citizens United decision. It's worth reading; and relying on pro-censorship people to tell you what it said is going to give you a heap of misinformation. The decision didn't equate speech with money; it didn't authorize any corporation or individual to give money to a politician; laws against bribery are enforceable the same as ever; and it didn't grant corporations the same rights as individuals. The FEC didn't like the content of a movie; so it suppressed it by barring the producer from advertising the movie; the Citizens United decision swatted the FEC on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and said "Bad government! Don't do that again!". Nothing in there at all about giving money to politicians.

As for the "Pentagon Papers", it seems very clear to me that the decision has nothing to do with the "speech" part of the First Amendment. It is about reference to the "press".

I don't understand why the distinction between "speech" and "press" makes a vital legal difference to you, or what you see in the First Amendment to back you up on that point; but, given that it makes a difference to you, why doesn't "Citizens United" qualify as "the press"? Why doesn't freedom of the press guarantee their right to publish? Because they're doing their pamphleteering with video equipment instead of pamphlets?

The "press" is clearly an institution. The reference to "speech" is not at all clearly related to commercial entities.
So your equivalence of the two is not valid, IMO.

In 1789 "the press" most typically referred to a guy with a printing press in his house, not to a collection of shareholders with a building full of employees. Moreover, Citizens United is a non-profit; it's not really the sort of organization "commercial entity" implies.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just because the Constitution grants more federal powers than the Articles of Confederation does not mean that the Constitution isn't a limited grant of powers with the rest belonging to the state or the people. It just grants a greater number of limited powers.

That is an ideological position. A more realistic one is that the interpretation of the Constitution is what matters in the end, and people are the ones to interpret just what the limits of government power and personal rights are under its loose and vaguely worded guidelines.

The same could be said of the Articles of Confederation.

 

[lpetrich]

According to Connecticut | National Popular Vote, Governor Malloy signed that National Popular Vote bill on May 24, making Connecticut the 12th jurisdiction to embrace the NPV.

The states with it are now CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA with 170 electoral votes. That leaves 98 more electoral votes before it goes into effect. Let's see what states it would need.

Reliably blue states:
DE, OR: 98 - (3 + 7) = 88
New England:
NH, ME: 88 - (4 + 4) = 80
Northern Midwest:
PA, MI, MN: 80 - (20 + 16 + 10) = 34
Southwest:
NV, NM, CO: 34 - (6 + 5 + 9) = 14
Some red states:
AZ, AR: 14 - (11 + 6) = -3

Some of the purple states may prefer to continue being Electoral-College kingmakers, so it may be necessary to convince some red states to go along as well as blue ones.

 

[Treedbear]

... The main thing is that more people on all sides of the issues would be motivated to vote, since the state one lived in would no longer matter. Right now, voter turnouts are depressingly low, because people in solid blue or red states see no point in voting if they disagree with the overwhelming majority of others living in that state.

That raises the issue of how this will motivate voters. If a majority of states supporting this are blue then blue states will have their EC votes influenced by red state voters, whereas if most red states opt out then their EC votes remain red. I think it's a losing gambit for the blue states. Democrats once again appealing to Republicans to choose the high road because it's more fair. The real solution is the ranked voting system, which coincidently Republicans are dead set against because it will cause them to never again win an election. But it would have prevented Trump's win due protest voters.

 

[Jayjay]

... The main thing is that more people on all sides of the issues would be motivated to vote, since the state one lived in would no longer matter. Right now, voter turnouts are depressingly low, because people in solid blue or red states see no point in voting if they disagree with the overwhelming majority of others living in that state.

That raises the issue of how this will motivate voters. If a majority of states supporting this are blue then blue states will have their EC votes influenced by red state voters, whereas if most red states opt out then their EC votes remain red. I think it's a losing gambit for the blue states. Democrats once again appealing to Republicans to choose the high road because it's more fair. The real solution is the ranked voting system, which coincidently Republicans are dead set against because it will cause them to never again win an election. But it would have prevented Trump's win due protest voters.

The NPV only takes effect if states that support it have > 50% of EC votes. So it doesn't matter what the states who opt out do, they don't have the votes to affect the outcome. The real risk here is that once NPV takes effect (or just before it does), there is only a very slim majority of states before the next election who've opted in, so there is going to be a lot of pressure from the party (or parties) who thinks they'll have better chances with EC to reverse the decision in some of those states. I'm not sure what happens in that case, do the other states revert back to old system?

 

[RavenSky]

You should review how the  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works.

From the linked Wiki article, and argument against the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is it will "allow lower caliber candidates to run".

Too late. One of the lowest caliber candidates won via the electoral college, so screw that argument against the popular vote.

 

[lpetrich]

The real solution is the ranked voting system, which coincidently Republicans are dead set against because it will cause them to never again win an election. But it would have prevented Trump's win due protest voters.

Do you mean preference voting? Instant runoff, for instance, is spoiler-proof.

I don't know how that might be fit into the electoral college. Calculate an overall preference vote for each state?

 

[Elixir]

It was actually Hamilton who came up with the idea. He worried that a popular vote would lead to the election of a totally incompetent or corrupt president, because the general public weren't educated or sophisticated enough to pick wisely. Electors would represent an educated elite cadre of landowners. The idea was seized upon by southern slaveowners, because the 3-5ths compromise guaranteed them a prospect of keeping slavery alive. Hence, we got a lot of presidents from Virginia. Ironically, in the modern context, the electoral college gives us Donald Trump, just the kind of president that Hamilton thought it would keep out of the presidency.

IMO, the only sensible method of electing a president is by a majority of the popular vote. We could have a runoff election or another secondary method for electing the president when there is no simple majority for any one candidate.

I wonder if it would trigger the process for constitutional amendment. I think according to Article V, 2/3 of the states have to agree to apply for the change, but it has not yet happened in a bottom-up way.

The National Popular Vote Initiative gets around the need to an amendment to the Constitution. It is a strategy that gives a coalition of states the power to circumvent the idiotic electoral college mess.

Agree 100%
There will be cries of "Tyranny of the majority!" regardless, but IMHO that's better than the current tyranny of the minority.