General Discussion

Gothmog

(182,944 posts)

110. Ken-I deal in fact and not feelings

Mon Jan 9, 2017, 05:39 PM

Jan 2017

Your feelings really do not matter when they deal with issues of constitutional law and the concept of justiciability. To use a concept from the rules of evidence, the feelings of a layperson about lawsuits affecting the constitution would not be admissible because such claims are lay opinions from someone who has no expertise in the area. Laypersons expressing opinions on such issues need to make sure that they understand the concepts. I initially ignored your OP's claim that a lawsuit could change the apportionment act because such claim would have no chance in the real world. I elected to focus an alternative that has an actual chance of coming about in the real world which is the National Popular vote. I was happy to defend the constitutionality of this proposal because I knew the law in this area.

You doubled down on the concept of a lawsuit attacking the apportionment act would be the preferable way. Under basic constitutional law, I was sure that such a lawsuit would be a loser and I was right. If you have read up on the issue and used facts you would have known that your proposed lawsuit would have no chance in the real world and that the courts had already rejected this concept with the SCOTUS denying cert in that lawsuit.

If you dislike the facts presented, then read up and use facts in response. Most laypersons would not advance the concept of a lawsuit without checking the case law first. The fact is that your entire thread on the Electoral College is based on a concept that most lawyers knew would not work in the real world. I am somewhat surprised that the case cited above was even brought in the first place but I am not surprised at either the three judge panel ruling or the denial of cert. by the SCOTUS

The bottom line is that we agree that the Electoral College is outdated but I am willing to support a concept that has a chance in the real world of working. 11 states with 165 electoral votes have already adopted this National Popular Vote concept.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lifting the 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House would make the Electoral College fairer. [View all] Ken Burch Jan 2017 OP

I've thought about that too. Right now it probably can't be done because of the makeup of shraby Jan 2017 #1

We should have it in the platform and require all congressional candidates to pledge to support it. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #2

You have something there. Maybe the ACLU could be persuaded? If not, a high profile shraby Jan 2017 #3

AND...we could argue an "original intent" case. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #4

If we are to stick with our current system it is the right thing to do ... etherealtruth Jan 2017 #5

Why would the Republicans do that? Adrahil Jan 2017 #6

We can use this as a way of mobilizing opposition to them and getting them out. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #15

I sure hope so. The pessimist in me says it's too late. They've already stacked the deck.... Adrahil Jan 2017 #29

You'd probably see bipartisan opposition in Congress Lurks Often Jan 2017 #7

something has to be done TDale313 Jan 2017 #17

This is exactly why this country was set up the way it was Lurks Often Jan 2017 #18

the Country was set up to provide equal representation and two Senators per state rufus dog Jan 2017 #21

It was also set up so that no one state had more influence then others Lurks Often Jan 2017 #58

The Senate is the body that is to be equally representative of all states Bettie Jan 2017 #116

No, it's why the senate exists LisiFFXV Jan 2017 #117

should california threaten secession to abolish the EC? eniwetok Jan 2017 #19

No they shouldn't NobodyHere Jan 2017 #35

I beg to differ... eniwetok Jan 2017 #53

They have no chance of successfully seceding. NobodyHere Jan 2017 #68

I don't agree that this would lead to war... eniwetok Jan 2017 #72

Nobody cares about the "moral" argument NobodyHere Jan 2017 #73

No, YOU don't care about the moral argument... eniwetok Jan 2017 #74

I don't think the system is going to be changed anytime soon NobodyHere Jan 2017 #77

The fact is, a Republican living in Russia is behind the CalExit plan. KittyWampus Jan 2017 #109

strawman! eniwetok Jan 2017 #112

Why would they be basically irrelevant? treestar Jan 2017 #66

Because CA as well as the other half dozen most popular states Lurks Often Jan 2017 #78

Why do people say that? treestar Jan 2017 #79

Then amend the Consitution and get 1 person and 1 vote Lurks Often Jan 2017 #88

the limit still needs to be lifted to allow them equal representation sarah FAILIN Jan 2017 #94

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Lurks Often Jan 2017 #95

It may not but it needs to happen sarah FAILIN Jan 2017 #96

Neither was the vote for women when it was first conceived treestar Jan 2017 #104

I think it should be tried treestar Jan 2017 #103

Great idea. Impossible in this congress. MineralMan Jan 2017 #8

Proposing this would be a WAY to help get Congress back. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #14

if you want democracy... then the entire system needs reform eniwetok Jan 2017 #20

this is the best plan here Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #9

and if we don't do that Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #10

the problem isn't taxes... it's representation eniwetok Jan 2017 #23

I understand Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #64

this is why we need a constitutional crisis... eniwetok Jan 2017 #65

But we can use the idea to GAIN support and mobilize voters. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #13

British parliament has 650 members, population of the UK octoberlib Jan 2017 #11

I've read that the House should have more than 1000 members by now to be fair. n/t Turn CO Blue Jan 2017 #12

Dems Are Victims Of A Defective System... eniwetok Jan 2017 #16

Has the enumeration been considered every 10 years? Amimnoch Jan 2017 #22

*Why* would the GOP controlled House want to do this? Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #24

Anything that isn't 1 person 1 vote is inherently unfair TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #25

one person one vote is meaningless unless.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #26

Exactly treestar Jan 2017 #67

The country should be ruled TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #70

It is unfair but right and proper LisiFFXV Jan 2017 #118

Talk to me again about tyranny TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #119

Good idea, Ken! Now we just gotta figure out the political roadmap. emulatorloo Jan 2017 #27

Why? Every house district represents 710,000 plus 2 senator. CK_John Jan 2017 #28

two reasons dsc Jan 2017 #40

That ratio has more than tripled since 1911, what happens... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #57

What is the back story on the Apportionment Act? leanforward Jan 2017 #30

How would this end gerrymandering? yallerdawg Jan 2017 #31

Good question. leanforward Jan 2017 #33

Would make it more difficult at least Freddie Jan 2017 #41

Sorry (not) but no. The EC needs to go, among many other things. UTUSN Jan 2017 #32

It's not likely the EC will ever be abolished. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #36

I know you're good-hearted. I'm at a point I have no hope/expectations. UTUSN Jan 2017 #37

I think one representative represents about 700,000 people. milestogo Jan 2017 #34

So, all we need to do is get control of the House and Senate... brooklynite Jan 2017 #38

I favor the interstate treaty/compact for the National popular vote Gothmog Jan 2017 #39

That will be found unconstitutional under the Compact Clause unfortunately Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #45

Really? Gothmog Jan 2017 #59

states cannot enter into binding compacts that have a national impact without approval of Congress Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #75

You are totally wrong Gothmog Jan 2017 #80

You do understand that the rather silly proposal advanced in the OP need congressional approval Gothmog Jan 2017 #82

passing an new Act (when and if we get control back) is MUCH easier than an Amendment to the Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #84

And the National Popular Vote requires neither Gothmog Jan 2017 #87

270 EV's will never sign onto it, see my other posts Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #90

Here is a simplistic explanation that even laypersons should understand Gothmog Jan 2017 #86

I am not changing my mind, and those examples of Compacts did NOT have national ramifications Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #89

I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts Gothmog Jan 2017 #91

Very good, that is convincing treestar Jan 2017 #105

11 states with 165 electoral votes have already signed on to this plan Gothmog Jan 2017 #106

sure, the easy states signed on... eniwetok Jan 2017 #113

The only alternatives offerred involve getting Congressional republicans to agree Gothmog Jan 2017 #115

Grey is correct about the compact clause eniwetok Jan 2017 #54

Read the case law Gothmog Jan 2017 #60

I'm well aware of the arguments... and I support the Compact eniwetok Jan 2017 #61

California and several states with good AGs have adopted this compact Gothmog Jan 2017 #62

you haven't made the case eniwetok Jan 2017 #69

Read the case law cited or have a lawyer read it and explain it to you. Gothmog Jan 2017 #81

The Wyoming Rule Freddie Jan 2017 #42

I would say keep the ratio static, Wyoming rounded down to nearest 100000 and the.... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #43

I don't think a legislative body of 1200 members could ever be functional Bucky Jan 2017 #49

If that's true then the democratic solutions would be breaking up the country... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #56

we could sue, saying it is no longer one man one vote using Wyoming as our example. Hamlette Jan 2017 #44

A Wyoming EV is worth 3.76 times more than a California EV Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #46

THIS!!!!!!! ....I have been screaming this for years, long before I joined this board Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #47

in 1787 the Sounders discussed how big the House of Reps should get Bucky Jan 2017 #48

The reverse is even worse, ie. a citizen gets lost in the crush of far too many people Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #50

Good point in general Bucky Jan 2017 #51

I am truly open to alternative suggestions, do you have any? this problem is going to just keep Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #52

The founders weren't always right, to be honest, they were... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #55

desirable principles were compromised away.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #63

What about proportional delegates instead of winner-take-all? Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #71

I've supported that as well. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #93

Excellent post... great idea!! Which tells me we'll never do it! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2017 #76

Does anyone really think that Congressional republicans will vote to increase the size of the house Gothmog Jan 2017 #83

You missed the part about challenging the Apportionment Act in court- Ken Burch Jan 2017 #92

Ken-your attempts at legal analysis are amusing Gothmog Jan 2017 #97

I know that, but the Apportionment Act is separate from that. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #99

Ken-your theory is so weak that it is funny Gothmog Jan 2017 #100

The concept of a lawsuit attacking the apportionment act is dumb and would be rejected by the courts Gothmog Jan 2017 #107

Can you give the insulting, personally dismissive thing a rest? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #108

Ken-I deal in fact and not feelings Gothmog Jan 2017 #110

We both know National Popular Vote will never prevail. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #111

No,you are wrong Gothmog Jan 2017 #114

You have no right to talk down to me, or to anyone else. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #120

Ken-your contemplated lawsuit was a very dumb idea and had no chance in the real world Gothmog Jan 2017 #121

The Congressional republicans will never vote to give up their advantage Gothmog Jan 2017 #85

Not to mention Congress. KamaAina Jan 2017 #98

Addendum matt819 Jan 2017 #101

I don't see how the 435 number skews the Electoral College severely. George II Jan 2017 #102