5 ms·

Again, can you please take the ad hominem out of it? It's getting in the way of having a productive discussion. > The United States of America is exactly what

Again, can you please take the ad hominem out of it? It's getting in the way of having a productive discussion. > The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic. This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation. > With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for. Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1]. > You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State. I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation. > The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties[sic] of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter. This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning. > Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority. This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people. > If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives. Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine meeting someone who had this take. Can you point me in the direction of Constitutional scholars who share the same opinions you do? I urge you to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers : No. 68[2]. It covers the motivations for the construction of the electoral college all which are not reflected in your assessment of it. If you wish to continue belaboring this point, please just quote from No68 where it agrees with you. 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/05/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/05/majority-of... 2. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493455 https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box...

Dalewyn 4y ago
>This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation. This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together. >Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1]. Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government. Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect. It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively. >I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation. The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States. >This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning. The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State. The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole. The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others. The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent. This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated. >This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people. >Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion. Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?

Dalewyn 4y ago

>This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation. This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together. >Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1]. Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government. Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect. It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively. >I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation. The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States. >This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning. The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State. The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole. The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others. The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent. This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated. >This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people. >Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion. Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?