Posted on 05/07/2018 8:29:42 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
And you only pay ONCE a year instead of quarterly.
They are trying to pass it by referendum. Missouri, Arizona
Dreadful mischief. Each of the states will decide who won the popular vote nationally
Yep. Quarterly payments are the governments way of saying “we’re ripping you off so utterly completely that if you waited to the end of the year to pay your taxes it would be horribly burdensome, so we send the collector by quarterly.
BTW, when we turn 65 our property taxes go down considerably. :-D
So what is the national popular vote? What is the One could make up all sorts of numbers. Anyway, will be interesting.
The national popular vote is a summation of independent state popular votes for their respective slates of electors to the Electoral College. The electors, in turn, vote for the President.
Since the people do not vote directly for the President, there is no issue with equal protection because their vote is protected within their states when they vote for their desired slate of electors to the Electoral College.
-PJ
All one would have to do is call into question any states count of the vote.
There is a huge issue. Even the nonsense that happened in 2000 was an equal protection issue; as counties (namely democrap ones) came up with different ideas on what a chad was, the SCOTUS ruled for it to stop.
All one would have to do is call into question any states count of the vote.
I'd argue that this is irrelevant because the purpose for the count is different, and proponents of a National Popular Vote Compact are using the state elector votes for a different purpose than intended by the Constitution. As long as the vote is proper within the state for the Constitutional purpose of selecting electors, the state's obligation is met and other states have no say in what another state does for their own usurped purpose.
My second argument would be that states are not Constitutionally required to have a popular vote to select their electors, it's just that the legislatures of the several states have chosen to do so. Just because some states have currently chosen this method does not bind them to this method forever, as the Constitution gives the states the power to select their method, and that power is not limited by time or once chosen. Therefore, a compact of other states cannot bind a state to a method, thereby removing its own right to change its method of choosing electors in the future.
Even the nonsense that happened in 2000 was an equal protection issue; as counties (namely democrap ones) came up with different ideas on what a chad was, the SCOTUS ruled for it to stop.
You are correct, but this was limited only to the count in Florida, which is what I originally said.
Perhaps I was imprecise when I said that "their vote is protected within their states when they vote for their desired slate of electors." What I meant was that the concept of equal protection applies within a state (the protection) because the whole state must vote the same way for the same slate of electors. Since different states can choose different methods of selecting electors, there is no single "equal protection" that can be applied across different methods of choosing, especially if a method can include no statewide voting at all.
In the case of Florida, the definition of a chad was only a small part of the issue. The main issue was limiting the recount only to the most densely populated Gore counties. The equal protection argument was that the voters in the other counties were not allowed a recount of their own votes as well, giving Dade/Broward/WPB an advantage. That argument was accepted 7-2 that the whole state must be recounted. The second argument was that the method of determining overvotes, undervotes intended votes(hanging chads) must also be standardized across the counties, and SCOTUS voted 5-4 that Florida did not have time to do all this within the certification window. SCOTUS stopped the recount lest Florida lose all their electoral college votes, disenfranchising all the voters in Florida over the antics of the voters in West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami.
As another example, if you have the case of Florida with hanging chads, and another state uses a pen to fill in a circle, and a third state uses touch screens, then how do you derive an "equal protection" across these states for the purpose of a recount? You can't, so equal protection must be limited to voting within each state.
-PJ
Speaking of the “Vote Compact”, how is that not in itself a violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution? It includes compact to increase hold on federal power.
Interestingly, the website for the National Popular Vote Compact video that purports to explain the "myth" of requiring Congressional approval saves the specific point to the last 30 seconds, spending most of the video on a lack of "federal interest" resulting in giving states free rein.
However, they conclude that if Congressional consent is required, it would not be required until the 270th EV state ratifies it, at which time they expect Congress to relent given that a "majority" of voters (actually the legislatures) would presumably be in support of it, and Congress hates to buck the people (except when it comes to Obamacare, border protection, immigration reform, etc.).
-PJ
Btw, I like your statement “ Congress hates to buck the people (except when it comes to Obamacare, border protection, immigration reform, etc.).”, or rather, anything other than liberal agendas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.