On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:25:40 -0500, "Bill Karns" <snrakb@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:19m8f21urveg1u6q9teber2c451v1i2k3n@4ax.com...

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:02:19 -0500, "Bill Karns" <snrakb@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:7a86f25a0eck7e9vfo8d8jk5bu2kdar74i@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:37:31 -0500, "Bill Karns" <snrakb@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:edt3f2de34v7muhr1dibakph3cp2d8i307@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:29:11 -0400,

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:34:56 -0500, "Bill Karns"

wrote:

Blah blah blah. Aren't you ever ashamed to rattle on about a

subject

of

which you are evidently completely ignorant?

Someone posited that states aren't allowed to make agreements

each other. I pointed out it's quite common. Are you telling

that

no two or more states in the history of this country have never

agreed

to accomplish an aim for themselves? I also pointed out that if

there

were a Constitutional prohibition on such pacts and the issue

pushed, there'd be a lot of unpopular fallout.

For anyone actually interested in learning something about

interstate

compacts, see this site:

http://www.every-vote-equal.com/files/Every-Vote-Equal.pdf

PDF? You couldn't find one credible web page to give the

information

above?

You can't find one credible site from which to download Adobe

From it you can learn that interstate compacts have a history

goes

back

centuries, and cover all kinds of issues --

Which was exactly my point, you idiot.

Well-spoken.

-- the Port Authority of New York
-- Compact of Agricultural Grain Marketing
-- Civil Defense Compact
-- Southern Regional Education Compact
-- Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas

etc. etc.

Sometimes Congress gets involved, sometimes not.

So, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about an

interstate

compact, but if Congress chose to look unfavorably upon this

particular

compact, it would probably be blown out of the water.

You are such a nice guy.

Thank you.

There may be a 14th amendment problem. A vote in Mississippi

be

considered more valuable than a vote from California.

What do you mean? I don't see how that's true.

And even if it were true, I don't see how that would be a violation

any

provision of the 14th amendment.

The 14 amendment establishes that citizens of a state vote for
electors in an election for president and vice president not
candidates. This plan would take away that Constitutional right. In
2004 the majority of voters in California voted for the electors of
John Kerry. If this plan were in effect then the electoral votes

have gone to Bush thus bypassing the will of the California voters.

Thank you for the explanation. I respectfully disagree:

Article 2 of the Constitution states "Each state shall appoint, in

manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,

to

the whole number of senators and representatives . . ."

The plan under discussion does not take away any part of that

College process. It merely changes the "manner as the legislature

thereof

may direct". The proposed plan dictates that the electors for

would be chosen based on the overall direct national vote, as would

electors for the other states participating in this compact. Thereby,

the

winner of the presidential election, as determined by the electors

in

those states, would also be the winner of the direct democratic

vote.

I don't see how you could construe that as a denial of anyone's voting
rights.

If this plan is adapted the voters in Mississippi would have the
constitutional right to vote for electors that would be denied those
in California.

It would be best to repeal those parts of Article II Section 1 that
deal with the electoral college before going to a direct democratic
vote.

But the beauty of this proposal is that it does not require any change

the Electoral College process, which would obviously mean a

constitutional

amendment.

Lets say that the state of California decided to apportion the
electoral vote based on who paid the most to the state legislative
retirement fund. This would be "legal" as well?

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that sounds like a violation of the
14th amendment, but not a violation of Article II.

A voter expects his vote to count for something. If a vote by a
California voter is attached to the actions of voters in other states
then his own will is set behind the will of voters in other states. A
vote for president in California with have less value to a California
citizen then that of a citizen of a state not party to the compact.

Can you illustrate this notion with an example? I don't see how you can
arrive at your conclusion, because in my view using this approach treats

votes throughout the nation as identical votes. Whichever candidate
receives the most of those identical votes is the winner under this

regardless of the states wherein those votes were cast.

A voter in California votes for John Kerry for president in 2004. The
will of the voter is that all 55 electoral votes for California should
go to Kerry. Even though Kerry wins California the will of the
California voter is ignored because of turn out in red states. Bush
gets all 55 of California's electoral votes.

See Article IV section 1 and 2.

The US has a Republican form of government. The Constitution did not
allow for any form of national direct election. This is an attempt to
bypass Constitutional intent by means other than Convolutional
Amendment.

National direct election? I agree, the constitution didn't prescribe it,
but it didn't prohibit it on principle, either.

So the US should go from a republic to a direct democracy? Dissolve
state borders? Put a stake through the heart of federalism. Dissolve
the House of Representatives? Have national elections for senators?

Convolutional Amendment? That was good for a chuckle -- I enjoyed it.

Damn spell checker.


--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde

"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net