Let's get rid of the Electoral College

There are a bunch of COVID threads, take the argument there please.

No, it's the closest state in size and population.

The only difference is the city of NY.

"Apples and oranges", get it? The "Big Apple"? Florida orange juice? Get it?

Section VIII

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that states could ban so-called faithless electors — meaning, for instance, that if Colorado’s voters choose a Democrat for president, Colorado can require its Electoral College members to vote for the Democrat. The decision will help stop electors from “going rogue,” as seven of 538 did in 2016.

It also raises some broader questions about the future of the Electoral College, and, in particular, about the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, in which states accounting for at least 270 electoral votes would agree to award their electors to whichever presidential candidate received the most votes nationwide. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, with 196 electoral votes among them, have signed on, but their commitment will not take effect unless enough states join them to reach 270.

Supporters of the compact see it as a way to functionally abolish the Electoral College without going through the extraordinarily difficult process of amending the Constitution to abolish it formally.

So if the Supreme Court has confirmed that electors can be required to vote in accordance with their state’s popular vote, does that mean they can also be required to vote in accordance with the national popular vote? Did proponents of a national popular vote just get a hidden victory?

In a word, no — but there could be some subtle benefits for them.

“The kind of challenges that would be mounted against the National Popular Vote Compact involve different legal questions,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine.

Those challenges would probably relate to the Compact Clause of the Constitution, which says in part that states can’t “enter into any agreement or compact with another state” without congressional approval. Courts have generally found that this restriction applies only to interstate agreements that increase states’ power at the expense of the federal government, or that lessen the power of states that aren’t in the agreement.

The question, then, is “whether or not the National Popular Vote Compact would be the kind of compact between states that could not be enacted without congressional approval,” Professor Hasen said, “and that’s something that the court didn’t speak to at all.”

There are, however, some indirect ways in which the ruling could affect national popular vote efforts.

From a legal standpoint, you can’t draw a line between the court’s ruling on Monday and national popular vote efforts, but “politically speaking, you absolutely can,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies election law and hosts a podcast on politics and the law.

“By strengthening the Electoral College and making it more rigid, I think it actually emboldens the national popular vote movement,” Professor Levinson said.

The chance for electors to go rogue in past elections, she said, may actually have lessened the pressure to abolish the Electoral College because electors had the ability, at least in theory, to support the winner of the national popular vote if they wanted to — even if, in practice, they almost never did (case in point: 2016). Monday’s ruling ensures that in most states, that will no longer be allowed.

More practically speaking, if the court had ruled the other way, it might have made the National Popular Vote Compact unenforceable. After all, if the justices had found that states cannot force electors to vote a certain way, then states presumably couldn’t have forced electors to abide by the national popular vote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. brought that up in oral arguments in May, asking Lawrence Lessig, who was arguing in favor of faithless electors, “Under your view, there would be no way to enforce the popular vote referendum?”

Mr. Lessig said that assessment was correct: The compact would require participating states to choose a set of electors “that fits with the winner of the national popular vote, and that slate of electors then would have the same discretion, legal discretion, that we believe any elector has.”

The justices’ rejection of Mr. Lessig’s arguments, then, at least leaves open the possibility that the compact could be enforced.

Interestingly, Mr. Lessig supports the National Popular Vote Compact and had suggested that he saw the lawsuit the Supreme Court resolved on Monday as a way to put pressure on Americans to abandon the Electoral College system. The idea was that perhaps with enough faithless electors, the system would become so chaotic that there would be little choice but to tear it down.

Professor Levinson said she was not convinced by that argument. “We have plenty of broken systems, and it seems to me we’re fairly comfortable living with them,” she said.

I'm not giving all the credit to Cuomo. A lot of it goes to the people — citizens who actually listened to the warnings and took the recommended precautions. Instead of walking around like armed goons crying because they couldn't get a haircut.

Compare the Constitution's authority to a corporation:

The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners,

but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time

, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendants.

Not all the looters and people responsible for burning buildings were the BLM protestors, some were either the opposite side trying to make the BLM look bad, or just agitators in general.

n any event the destruction of public property is against the law and should be treated as such, period.

However, most of the BLM protestors were indeed peaceful.

The one in the front of the WH who got peppered sprayed and hauled away were peaceful protestors. The protest in my own hometown was a peaceful protest, with nary a loaded gun or looter in sight.

Federal prosecutors filed charges this week against three alleged boogaloo members accused of plotting to cause violence and destruction at Las Vegas protest.

Three of them

I suppose the word "boogoloo" means nothing to you.

Three of them were arrested during protest which was going on after Floyd was killed.

Explainer: Who are Antifa, the 'boogaloo' movement and others blamed in U.S. protest violence?

So, getting back to the Constitution. I do respect it as an historical document which reflects some of the best things about the English Enlightenment. But I don't revere it the way some conservatives do, expecting everyone else to feel the same way.

Within eight years after it was ratified the understanding of the role of electors had changed. Hamilton had envisioned a body of wise men who would serve as a way to insulate the office of the president from the rule of the mob. The rise of factionalism enshrined populist mob rule but the document was never changed to reflect this.

Similarly the role and purpose of the militia was pretty much obviated by the time of the War of 1812, but the document was never changed.

Quote:

Section VIII

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

If basic matters like this can be completely overlooked what is the purpose of the Constitution?

Compare the Constitution's authority to a corporation: The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners, but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendants.

This is why progressives are bad people. They want to do away with our Constitution.
The purpose is to prevent progressives from inflicting their bad ideas on the nation.