USA a false democracy?

Non-sequitur

Is it a compact between states? Go study your constitution especially Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.

 

None of the NIPV goombahs seem to understand the constitution, absent approval from congress, explicitly outlaws what they want to do.

 

It doesn't require any contractual agreement between states.

 

It is NAMED the National Interstate Popular Vote COMPACT......geeez. And if there is no contractual agreement between the states then there is no enforcement and it's not worth the paper it is written on. You think that if Trump had more votes by adding up all the state tallies than Biden but Biden won more electors on paper that the state that voted in large majorities for Biden in their state would sit and watch all the electoral votes go to Trump. You think if Biden won California by 70% the the citizens would stand to have there electoral votes go to Trump or would they renege on the unenforceable agreement?

And doesn't even require a contract.

Compact
An agreement, treaty, or contract.

The term compact is most often applied to agreements among states or between nations on matters in which they have a common concern.

The Constitution contains the Compact Clause, which prohibits one state from entering into a compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Compact

 

Or that the states they have on board are the easy ones to get, the Democrat states which believe they are safe because they will always win a tally of all the states votes. Just wait till it bites them and there is no way to enforce the COMPACT..

 

Well yes - as soon as CA NY and IL have to give their EVs to a Republican, it will fall apart.

 

Can you imagine the fire on fire hysteria that would go on!!! "WAIT WE DIDN'T THINK THIS WOULD HAPPEN WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY ANYMORE "

There are lots who simply do not understand our form of government and how it works and why. The federalist system of STATES is one reason and that the STATES elect the President.

 

That's exactly what would happen.

 

We have now experienced an insurrection in our Capitol. The House chambers were forceably entered and Representatives hid in fear for their lives.

The Constitution says that any politician who, having previously taken an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof .... may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The political right LOVES to fume and rant against "the tyranny of the majority". But here we have exactly that with the majority of the Senate having been complicit in "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" in their defense and even support of this insurrection. These guilty enemies of the Constitution cannot be voted out by two-thirds of their House BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES.

So in their great loathing of "the tyranny of the majority", what does the political right do? --they double down and, in violation of their own loathing, they defend and protect the tyranny of the majority of Senate members against lawful action in response to this insurrection.

This kind of complicit behavior by the public is the stuff that enables despots to seize state power.

Their worries about "the tyranny of the majority" be damned. If we survive this assault, we MUST transition to the popular vote, AND we must have several new amendments to the Constitution to correct for this disaster and ensure it cannot happen again. AND a long list of politicians and judges and media personnel need to go to prison for a long, long time.

 

^^^^
Further proof that the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

You must then support the removal of Speaker Pelosi for committing sedition.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-trump-from-ordering-military-action.583522/

 

Unless there are such consequences as these....there is really no incentive to change.
Perhaps Republicans are hesitant because without a demagogue like Trump to get them elected they would be voted out of existence as a party.

 

AND because with measures like these the Republican Party would cease to exist.

 

A compact IS a contract. As I already demonstrated to you. So how do they enforce it?

 

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

 

BUT BUT BUT it's not a Compact, not a Contract.

 

I agree with you regarding the seriousness of attempted sedition on January 6th. There must be a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may according to law. I also favor a national popular vote for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, on the basis of one person-one vote. The "tyranny of the majority" was a concern for most of the "founding fathers." They expressed that concern through a number of compromises in writing the Constitution (e.g. the big state-small state compromise; the three fifths compromises, etc.). One that seldom gets attention is the Congress' voting requirements in establishing "super-majorities." All votes requiring a vote other than conviction on impeachment, treaties, overturning a Presidential veto, or changing the Constitution may be passed by a simple majority (i.e. the tyranny of a simple majority). Other defenses against majority "tyrannies" are established through Congressional "rules," such as the Senate filibuster, which requires a 60 vote majority to end debate (with a few exceptions established over the years). New rules may be established in each chamber (the House and the Senate) at the beginning of each new Congress. The Senate filibuster rule, with the few exceptions, effectively pushes the simple majority of "51" votes to a super-majority of "60." IMO, this is contrary to the Constitutional scheme of requiring only a simple majority for all votes, unless specifically identified in the Constitution itself. Maybe it's time for Schumer to scrap the filibuster altogether?

 

Are you pretending to understand how our system works ? We are a Constitutional Republic - and while not a Pure Democracy - there is a democratic process interwoven into our system .. how else is the will of the people to be heard ?

and this is the process which is broken - if one is bright enough to read between the lines - rather than call out obvious typo's and so forth - (not talking you of course because you are not a typo NAZI - are you ? .. just kidding..

So how will the voice of the people be heard .. sans a democratic process ? - and if you concede this point - which you should .. do you think this democratic process is functional ?

 

Indeed. Say "hi" to Corvallis. My wife and I divide time between Corvallis and British Columbia, but right now we're in BC and have been there since the start of the pandemic. BC has 5.1m people, about 20% more than Oregon, and this for handling the pandemic...





Oregon is pretty good, but not as good ad BC. My sister lives in Corvallis and keeps me updated. Corvallis is really good, so I don't think we've gained much. This is the longest I've ever been out of the country in my life. But it's more safe in BC, and our daughter lives here, too, so we're staying put for now.

Who wants to stand in line to vote? Not me.

P.S. We should play up the Portland riots crossbones: ) so no one will want to move to Oregon.

 

Democracy is not a desirable system. A Republic with some democratic features is.

 

USSR without KGB:

§ On the scientific nature of alternative history:
The thesis "History has no subjunctive mood" - has a propaganda role and reason. -
The underdevelopment of the science of the laws of history contributes to its falsification.

Yes, on the 1st hand, historical causes determine historical consequences.
History is stable in the sense of the minor role of the individual in history, etc. - The "butterfly effect" does not work in history - in a statistically overwhelming number of cases. -
Those who speculate about alternatives simply do not know or do not consider all the factors.

But, on the 2nd hand, the history itself on Earth is accidental, it could be completely different.
Modeling different conditions is an acceptable and fruitful method for studying the laws of history, since the necessary scientific experiment in history is possible only - with the help of modeling. -
Purely observational science is incomplete. Even astronomers develop astronomy primarily through computer simulations.

 

We are a republic with a democratic method of choosing leaders - a democratic republic.

 

A FEDERAL Republic, you have limited democratic process in your state not the federal level.

I pledge allegiance to the flag and the United States of America
And to the REPBULIC for which it stands.

 

This is exactly why the electoral college was created in the first place. To prevent popularism from putting people into the White House.

The members of the electoral college are suppose to be appointed based on their care for the nation. Being above politics.

Just because a person is popular, does not mean that they are able to be the President. The Donald comes to mind here.

The problem right now is not with the electoral college. It is with the nature of the Republican party to march in lock-step with out any thought of the consequences. The electoral college (back in 2016) never should have selected the Donald.

Imagine back in 1972 if Pat Paulson became the President.

 

When was the last time you saw dissent in the Democratic party?

 

Correct. That's why the concept of "individual rights" vis a vis government, needs to be fully understood.

Firstly, the concept of "sovereignty of the individual" is delusional in a world with more than one individual, IF anarchy is to be avoided. Note: the predatory system of nature has endowed individuals with competitive, blind (irrational**) SURVIVAL instincts, **irrational in the sense that instincts are not derived from conscious, rational, thinking processes.

That's why the 18th century US constitution is an inadequate source document as a basis for modern government in a global, ecologically-challenged world of interdependent trading nations.

See above.