Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
taestell

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Recommended Posts

Electors are assigned by the state according to the way the state voted (unless otherwise dictated by the statute, the devil will be in the details)  The state would mandate that the electors vote according to the compact under penalties of law (at least that is how I understood it was being constructed). If that is the case, the state now would have no teeth to enforce the law of a "faithless" elector.

 

I do imagine if this were to happen, there would be some Constitutional challenges to this as the majority of voters in the state who voted for a candidate who loses the popular vote would claim harm because their rights would be ignored in favor of other state's wishes. The whole compact thing is going to be a mess if it gets enough support and under the current court makeup, cant see how it would survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Electors are assigned by the state according to the way the state voted (unless otherwise dictated by the statute, the devil will be in the details)  The state would mandate that the electors vote according to the compact under penalties of law (at least that is how I understood it was being constructed). If that is the case, the state now would have no teeth to enforce the law of a "faithless" elector.


Before the general election, each party nominates their electors. The state assigns the electors based on their own rules. This could be done proportionally, by senate/house districts, by state popular vote, or potentially by nationally popular vote.

 

So the only thing that changes with the interstate compact is that some states will award the voters to the party that won the popular vote nationwide instead of the popular vote in the state alone (or a split method like Maine and Nebraska). The law would not require electors to follow the national popular vote. It would just award the votes to the electors of the winning party nationally.

 

Both situations can have faithless electors who vote for the opposite party that they are in (or for anyone, really). This court decision should have no impact on the interstate compact compared to the current setup.

 

The Interstate Compact will almost certainly lead to a Supreme Court ruling. But I don't think this new ruling has any bearing on the Interstate Compact's efficacy or legality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:


Before the general election, each party nominates their electors. The state assigns the electors based on their own rules. This could be done proportionally, by senate/house districts, by state popular vote, or potentially by nationally popular vote.

 

So the only thing that changes with the interstate compact is that some states will award the voters to the party that won the popular vote nationwide instead of the popular vote in the state alone (or a split method like Maine and Nebraska). The law would not require electors to follow the national popular vote. It would just award the votes to the electors of the winning party nationally.

 

Both situations can have faithless electors who vote for the opposite party that they are in (or for anyone, really). This court decision should have no impact on the interstate compact compared to the current setup.

 

The Interstate Compact will almost certainly lead to a Supreme Court ruling. But I don't think this new ruling has any bearing on the Interstate Compact's efficacy or legality.

I dont think this ruling changes anything specifically with the IC, however, it does show how some federal courts are going to view this and their intent to be hostile toward the pact. (just speculation)

 

ALso, as far as how the rules of the pact are applied to each state, the devil will be in the details. If the state was set up assuming their would be no faithless electors, the details may essentially void the IC if the language of the law allows the slate of electors to be appointed by the winning party (i.e. you have GOP electors but under the pact would be required to vote for the Dem candidate). In such a scenario, you will have a group of electors en-masse openly violate the IC.  Again, not saying this is the case, but if the language of the law is not specific as to the mechanics, this is something that could occur, especially given the recent ruling in the Colorado case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 6:34 AM, Frmr CLEder said:

One vote = one vote

 

That is all and fine today, but what happens if/when Ohio's population shrinks further?

 

Well no longer be an "important" state, but become Iowa, N/S Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas AKA Fly over country, and our countries governing and policies will be dictated by coastal cities and those in - good lawd - crazies in Texas and Florida.

 

i mean what i say love and hip hop GIF by VH1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you mean it. So do I. Look at this mess we are today.  For NEO, it may be more beneficial for policy to be more reflective of the east and west coasts vs Columbus and the rest of Ohio. How are things going with urban mass transit and economic development?

 

In a true democracy, 

1 vote = 1 vote.  Period.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

In a true democracy, 

1 vote = 1 vote.  Period.

 

This is the "United States of America." Your state is a good example of a "true democracy." The federal government is a union of representatives from each state - in every regard. This fact was the fundamental driver of the design of the Constitution.

 

This compact really spits in the face of the concept of united states. If you support this - why keep states at all? Where's the line drawn, if not where the framers drew it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

This is the "United States of America." Your state is a good example of a "true democracy." The federal government is a union of representatives from each state - in every regard. This fact was the fundamental driver of the design of the Constitution.

 

This compact really spits in the face of the concept of united states. If you support this - why keep states at all? Where's the line drawn, if not where the framers drew it?

In a true democracy, one district or state would carry no more weight than another EXCEPT because it has more individual voters.

 

One vote = One vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

That is all and fine today, but what happens if/when Ohio's population shrinks further?

 

Well no longer be an "important" state, but become Iowa, N/S Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas AKA Fly over country, and our countries governing and policies will be dictated by coastal cities and those in - good lawd - crazies in Texas and Florida.

 

i mean what i say love and hip hop GIF by VH1

 

I, for one, welcome our coastal overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I, for one, welcome our coastal overlords.

 

 

It wouldn't' have to be this way if the GOP wasn't radicalizing the flyover states to maintain their control in the face of massive demographic change.   

 

In the end, the red states end up voting against their own self interest.  They are the ones that already receive the most federal dollars per capita, and could use more access to healthcare and other social programs.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mu2010 said:

 

I, for one, welcome our coastal overlords.

 

Ohio isn't shrinking, though. At worst, we're plateauing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Ohio isn't shrinking, though. At worst, we're plateauing

 

True, our population growth is slowing and we are leveling off around 11.7M.

Quote

It's currently estimated that Ohio will continue its very slow growth, not even breaking 11.7 million between 2020 and 2030.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ohio-population/

 

Of more concern than a stablizing population, however, is our aging population. 

Quote

The population composition of the state is shifting older: by 2025, more than 1 in 4 Ohioans will be age 60 and older.

https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/centers/scripps/research/ohio-population/index.html

 

I would be in favor of polices that encourage more immigration to counter this trend.  And I mean policies that make it easier to legally immigrate to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our population would be both increasing and aging a lot faster if people quit moving to Florida when they retire.  

 

This is one of the big reasons why homes in Ohio's cities remain affordable - people move out when they turn 65, unlike in California, where Prop 13 or whatever it is + the weather keep people living in their bungalows.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Our population would be both increasing and aging a lot faster if people quit moving to Florida when they retire.  

 

This is one of the big reasons why homes in Ohio's cities remain affordable - people move out when they turn 65, unlike in California, where Prop 13 or whatever it is + the weather keep people living in their bungalows.  

 

True, but the benefit of a larger population could be outweighed by the increasing age of the population.  

 

Although I wonder how significant that is these days -- I know people who move out of state to be closer to their kids and grandkids, but not as many seem to be moving to Florida these days.  In fact, I know quite a few retirees staying in Ohio to be near family and friends, traveling to Florida or Arizona or Texas for a few months out of the year (between Christmas and Easter), but maintaining their Ohio residence.  It would be interesting to see the data so we could really know what the trends are (beyond the anecdotal "evidence" every one of us has individually.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

True, but the benefit of a larger population could be outweighed by the increasing age of the population.  

 

Although I wonder how significant that is these days -- I know people who move out of state to be closer to their kids and grandkids, but not as many seem to be moving to Florida these days.  In fact, I know quite a few retirees staying in Ohio to be near family and friends, traveling to Florida or Arizona or Texas for a few months out of the year (between Christmas and Easter), but maintaining their Ohio residence.  It would be interesting to see the data so we could really know what the trends are (beyond the anecdotal "evidence" every one of us has individually.)

 

Yea, don't have the time right now to pull all the data but I work with population data and it does show that folks in Ohio (and around the country) are increasingly "aging in place." There's not as much moving to Florida as there used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, don't have the time right now to pull all the data but I work with population data and it does show that folks in Ohio (and around the country) are increasingly "aging in place." There's not as much moving to Florida as there used to be.

So "Gods waiting room - East" AKA Florida and "Gods waiting room - West" AKA Arizona are not seeing as many patients?  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

So "Gods waiting room - East" AKA Florida and "Gods waiting room - West" AKA Arizona are not seeing as many patients?  Interesting.

 

Yea, just one example is The Villages. The giant retirement community is the largest community in Sumter County. Sumter County, the oldest county in the US (median age 66.6), grew 75% in the 2000s but only 34% this decade. And The Villages is doing still growing rapidly compared to other destinations. Citrus County, another big retirement destination, saw its growth rate decline from 19.6% last decade to 1.7% so far this decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 6:18 PM, jmecklenborg said:

Our population would be both increasing and aging a lot faster if people quit moving to Florida when they retire.  

 

This is one of the big reasons why homes in Ohio's cities remain affordable - people move out when they turn 65, unlike in California, where Prop 13 or whatever it is + the weather keep people living in their bungalows.  

Besides the weather, Florida has no state income tax.  This is a biggy!

 

For retirees, any previously untaxed income, drawn at retirement is subject to income tax (Federal, State and City); that means pensions and 401Ks; for those of you who have yet to approach retirement age.

 

Beware!

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Frmr CLEder said:

Besides the weather, Florida has no state income tax.  This is a biggy!

 

For retirees, any previously untaxed income, drawn at retirement is subject to income tax (Federal, State and City); that means pensions and 401Ks; for those of you who have yet to approach retirement age.

 

Beware!


Unless you're making significant money in retirement, the state income tax in Ohio shouldn't be a big reason to move to Florida. Say you get $40,000/year in retirement. The state will collect around $731 of that. That's not a significant amount of money. It would take years to recover even the moving expenses of going from Ohio to Florida. Obviously if you make tons of money in retirement, then that becomes a different calculation. Or if you live in a state with a higher state income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for the vast majority of retirees, the decision to move to Florida or AZ is because of the weather, not the taxes their descendants have to pay when they die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frmr CLEder said:

I moved to FL from NYC because in addition to Federal, there's NYS and NYC income tax.

 

Because it has a regressive tax structure that punishes the state's poor for the benefit of the middle class and wealthy who move there from elsewhere.  "Low Tax" just means regressive.  Florida is usually ranked as one of the Top 5 most regressively taxed states.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Because it has a regressive tax structure that punishes the state's poor for the benefit of the middle class and wealthy who move there from elsewhere.  "Low Tax" just means regressive.  Florida is usually ranked as one of the Top 5 most regressively taxed states.  

"LowTax" is a relative term.  Few cities have income tax rates higher than NYC.  FL has none.

Edited by Frmr CLEder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frmr CLEder said:

"LowTax" is a relative term.  Few cities have income tax rates higher than NYC.

 

Boo-hoo.  It has remained the center of many industries despite its high cost of living.  Alaska pays you to live there but nobody's moving there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...