General Discussion

sarisataka

(22,847 posts)

33. It still leaves no incentive for red states,

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 09:52 AM

Aug 2019

Especially small red states to join the compact or support an Amendment to change/abolish the EC. Arguably red states are not needed, or at least very few, to get to 270 and make non-participation by the others moot but it is an unbalanced system.

I agree that scenarios can be designed to "what-if" something to death, e.g. say an alien and his robot land in DC on election day...
However not considering any "what-ifs" is very myopic. A three way split scenario is not much less plausible than a candidate with a lower popular vote total receiving more electoral votes.

I believe even though I am not a learned scholar on a subject I am still allowed to have an opinion. And if I, an amateur, can poke a hole in the idea of an expert that cannot be plugged, maybe the idea needs further consideration.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A court ruling just changed how we pick our president [View all] Kilgore Aug 2019 OP

Damn uponit7771 Aug 2019 #1

Tax returns are next Kilgore Aug 2019 #2

We have no choice but to end the EC, either directly or indirectly hlthe2b Aug 2019 #3

How does that help? Kilgore Aug 2019 #6

???? Do you know what the National Interstate Compact is? hlthe2b Aug 2019 #8

Yes Kilgore Aug 2019 #11

Kindly try reponding to my actual post argument rather than kneejerk, reflexive nay-saying. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #12

I did Kilgore Aug 2019 #14

The NIC would not "replace" the EC. It would change how states choose their electors onenote Aug 2019 #41

I never said it did replace EC. Kindly stop rephrasing or attributing words I never said. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #43

Actually, you said it would 'end' the EC 'indirectly.' onenote Aug 2019 #47

It does-- INDIRECTLY-- end it if successful. INDIRECTLY--look it up. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #49

Your answers assertions addressed in detail: hlthe2b Aug 2019 #44

You're misunderstanding what the compact does, or how it would work Ms. Toad Aug 2019 #57

I fully understand. You are misinterpreting my posts intentionally it would appear. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #58

Then please explain Ms. Toad Aug 2019 #60

This doesn't fix the problem of faithless electors Sgent Aug 2019 #19

Laurence Tribe believes it will. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #20

Tribe doesn't offer an explanation as to how the National Popular Vote compact would do away with onenote Aug 2019 #42

Your answers assertions addressed in detail: hlthe2b Aug 2019 #45

See my response - post #47 onenote Aug 2019 #48

See my response that you didn't bother to read. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #50

Your response was to cut and paste a page I've read in the past and was responding to in my post. onenote Aug 2019 #51

Your answers/ assertions addressed in detail: hlthe2b Aug 2019 #46

I brought this up yesterday but sarisataka Aug 2019 #28

You miss the point that they require (currently) states supplying more than 70 more EC votes. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #29

It still leaves no incentive for red states, sarisataka Aug 2019 #33

Had someone endlessly brought up the what-ifs of a Donald Trump to the founding fathers hlthe2b Aug 2019 #35

Different philosophies sarisataka Aug 2019 #38

Yet you offer no alternative... hlthe2b Aug 2019 #39

Yup. The litigation would be epic (nt) Recursion Aug 2019 #37

And NOW we're told that the 2020 presidential winner... maddiemom Aug 2019 #31

SC appeal next and there is time before 2020... hlthe2b Aug 2019 #4

Honestly do you think the outcome will change Kilgore Aug 2019 #7

Kneejerk response, but we won't know until they take it up. hlthe2b Aug 2019 #9

True Kilgore Aug 2019 #16

This is the type of issue more likely to come down 9-0 than 5-4. n/t PoliticAverse Aug 2019 #52

Your probably correct Kilgore Aug 2019 #61

Have you looked at the composition of the panel that made the ruling? FBaggins Aug 2019 #40

So now they can be bought and paid for by a bribe and no one can contest thier vote. infullview Aug 2019 #5

It's so much easier to pay off a few electors than to try Farmer-Rick Aug 2019 #25

"I know you're pledged to vote for Candidate X, and can give me Buns_of_Fire Aug 2019 #10

Well Played!!!!! Kilgore Aug 2019 #13

And money is speech according to Citizens United Captain Zero Aug 2019 #15

then why do we even vote? samnsara Aug 2019 #17

40 percent don't Farmer-Rick Aug 2019 #26

Show. Kid Berwyn Aug 2019 #32

I have pointed out for years sarisataka Aug 2019 #34

Hmmm. But not over even at this level. The 10th Circuit returned it Hortensis Aug 2019 #18

The Lessig name was familiar so I looked him up... WePurrsevere Aug 2019 #23

Exactly. Me too. Hortensis Aug 2019 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author groundloop Aug 2019 #21

Perhaps not as big a deal as it seems Fiendish Thingy Aug 2019 #22

At Some Point, If We Are to Remain a Democracy, the Electoral College Must Go dlk Aug 2019 #27

My own view is that I don't think it's so much PRETZEL Aug 2019 #36

Meh.... Sgent Aug 2019 #62

Electors in Red states may just come around. Trump does not deserve a 2nd term. ProudMNDemocrat Aug 2019 #30

No, it didn't "change how we pick our president". Electors could always vote for whomever they PoliticAverse Aug 2019 #53

Time to get rid of the EC. roamer65 Aug 2019 #54

The "Democratic" elector in the case voted for KASICH against Hillary?!1 This decision is NOT GOOD!1 UTUSN Aug 2019 #55

Three others voted for Colin Powell Shrek Aug 2019 #56

Changed? Isn't this how it's always been? Joe941 Aug 2019 #59

Stealing 2020 in its early stages? IdealsAndReal42 Aug 2019 #63