Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Bird

Going the NPV route would result in the political equivalent of "free beer" to New York, California, and a couple of other large states constituting an electoral majority. Can you not see that?

That's simply untrue. It presumes that everyone in those areas votes the same way, which they don't. It also presumes that if you somehow convinced everyone in those areas to vote the same way you'd have a national majority, which you wouldn't. I'll spare you the cut and paste routine. Check out the FAQ page on nationalpopularvote(dot)com. If you can dispute their numbers, more power to you.

To your point about conserving institutions, I would make two notes. First, no institution is threatened by the NPV state compact. But even if it was, argument from tradition is not an argument. We don't conserve institutions merely because they exist. We conserve them when they serve a rational purpose. This brings us back to the argument we should be having, which is whether the NPV compact has merit as policy.

15 posted on 06/24/2011 8:19:22 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson (fightinwords.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Walter Scott Hudson
We don't conserve institutions merely because they exist. We conserve them when they serve a rational purpose.

And the existing process for electing a president is a rational process that has been in place for over 200 years. I fail to see any drawbacks that would compel me to consider some new-fangled way of doing it.

21 posted on 06/24/2011 8:24:02 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Walter Scott Hudson
Check out the FAQ page on nationalpopularvote(dot)com. If you can dispute their numbers, more power to you.

Thanks, I just checked it out. What an insipid load of bloviation that FAQ page is! Dispute their numbers? Why should I? The numbers are correct, it's the philosophy that remains completely sophomoric. "Ohio has more people than a collection of small states, but their electoral representation isn't proportional!" Waah, waah, waah. The simple answer to the main complaint ("my vote doesn't 'count' because I live in Montana") is that if you want to be wined and dined by a politician, move to a freaking state that's competitive.

26 posted on 06/24/2011 8:32:32 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

“This brings us back to the argument we should be having, which is whether the NPV compact has merit as policy.”

Why debate NPV?

This is a republic, not a democracy. Democratic, yes, but no democracy. The Constitution deliberately protected the interests of the smaller states. The NPV would swamp and swallow up the smaller states. Why not disband the Senate while we are at it?

“...not an argument. We don’t conserve institutions merely because they exist.”

Yes we do. It’s called the Constitution. An NPV will never reach ratification, and a defacto NPV movement will be overruled by the Supreme Court.

Assuming there is still a Constitution left....


27 posted on 06/24/2011 8:33:24 AM PDT by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: All

it is already bad when all the $$$$$$$ go to three or four states in election years. this would make it three or four CITIES.

why not make it per county? answer because this is about electing the left not americans.


77 posted on 06/24/2011 2:18:50 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson