The word ‘college’ isn’t in the constitution.

As far as LW is concerned, …if U care to quote or point out any errors in what I posted ( L. Daybell or others) I will review it as time allows, I like to revise or correct my errors.

btw, I never said or claimed attending or being enrolled in any Law School.

The use of your moniker invites or at least suggests you’re ok with the mention of your gender, doesn’t it? But with a lot of things here & online it may be used as sarcasm.

Electoral ‘system’ was implemented at a time when communication was primitive, I did appreciate your historical review, but U suggested that the founders knew about polygamy (?)

I say/ maintain that the NPVIC is the (ONLY)quickest & most viable way Out of the state by state Bingo we have now:

- participation is voluntary statewise
- “conservatives” (twisted term lately) fight it, not approve or support it.

I don’t believe there’s any Silver Bullet for the mess the U.S.is in now & haven’t/ don’t say or claim NPV is perfect (as if such a thing exists)

One person, one equal weight Vote, to be counted & reported accurately, simple, huh?

eta: I believe there’s a pending, un-ratified change that makes WDC a state.. Or is that a National ERA I’m thinking of.
I would support WDC becoming a state but it’s become yet another Them vs. Us issue



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2022 02:46PM by GNPE.

Whether the "electoral college" is in the constitution itself is irrelevant since it is the institutionalization of the rules established in the constitution.

Your NPVIC system will not improve the situation since it represents a reduction in Democratic power while doing nothing to compel underpopulated Republican states to surrender their disproportionate influence. What you propose is therefore unilateral disarmament by the Dems and hence would, if adopted, drive the US further from the goal of one-human/one-vote.

As for your questioning my gender, which is in any case irrelevant to the purposes of the board, you backed off last time when I questioned whether you are really a man. Now you are at it again. All I will say is that a man who is truly confident in his gender identity would not need to speak so often and proudly of his manliness and his nudist preferences. As Shakespeare would have said, the methinks GNPE doth protest too much.

Regarding your mistakes on the legal process with regard to Vallow and Daybell, we are cursed with an abundance of riches.

Take this misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment. You asserted that the prosecutor and/or judge could put her on the stand and make her invoke her rights against self-incrimination publicly. There is well-established constitutional law saying precisely the opposite inasmuch as any answer in court or public can be used against the defendant in criminal court.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2289467,2290685#msg-2290685

Or consider this gem: your assertion that the judge could put Vallow on the stand and make her ask where her children were. For some reason you thought that would not violate of her Fifth Amendment rights.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2289467,2290712#msg-2290712

Or this, where you assert that the judge could demand that Vallow reveal the children's whereabouts under penalty of perjury or contempt. You said, "without a valid, meaningful threat of adverse consequences for disobeying a court order, many (more) would feel emboldened to ignore, disregard court orders." That all makes sense except for the fact that your hypothetical judge would be forcing Vallow to testify against herself.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2289467,2290769#msg-2290769

Or this very similar one:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2289467,2290876#msg-2290876

There are other examples, including your musings about jurisdiction, but this liest should make the point. In the event, te judge did none of what you said she could, and should do. Why? Because as attractive as those actions may be to you and/or me, they would result in Chad and Lori being set free by dint of the judge's unconstitutional conduct.

There's wisdom in that. Whether you will see it or not is an open question.

Could it possibly be that I might have been referring to a civil case against her brought by other relatives & interested persons?

You don’t reveal your gender here, Why should I?

Pray tell, consider which states have ratified the NPVIC, I say that’s 100% telling especially in light of which recent presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote..
Hint: the most recent has the initials DJT..

Facts are sometimes if not often pesky things, eh?

eta: I have virtually No Knowledge regarding Idaho statutes or court rules,I wrote that from the get-go;

If you know these bc of being an attorney licensed in Idaho, please indicate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2022 07:02PM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could it possibly be that I might have been
> referring to a civil case against her brought by
> other relatives & interested persons?

No, it could not have been a reference to a civil case brought by others. For you specified exactly what you meant: the criminal judge issuing orders to Lori and/or Chad that would have violated their constitutional rights.

You can't skate away from that.


----------------
> You don’t reveal your gender here, Why should
> I?

The question is why you feel impelled to question my gender. I have no interest--absolutely no interest--in knowing anything about you. So stop raising questions about my personal life.


----------------
> Pray tell, consider which states have ratified the
> NPVIC, I say that’s 100% telling especially in
> light of which recent presidents have been elected
> despite losing the popular vote.

As I said above, the states that have conditionally ratified the NPVIC are almost all Democratic. The vast majority of Republican states have refused to do so. The end result is that your preferred system would require the Dems to reduce their ability to maximize their voting power in certain circumstances.

I repeat: you are requesting that the Dems unilaterally disarm. If you have facts to dispute that, present them.


---------------
> Hint: the most recent has the initials DJT..

Brilliant. DJT became president despite the fact that he lost the popular vote. The solution you are proposing now would make that easier to do in the future.

Does that sound like a good idea?


---------------
> Facts are sometimes if not often pesky things,
> eh?

Facts are indeed pesky things. So how do you reconcile your view, repeated long after they were discredited, that the answer to disproportionate GOP power is to disarm the Democrats?


----------------
> eta: I have virtually No Knowledge regarding Idaho
> statutes or court rules,I wrote that from the
> get-go;

The rules in question are based in the US constitution. Having an understanding of Idaho rules is irrelevant. No court in the country could do what you propose without violating the constitution and having the case thrown out.


-----------------
> If you know these bc of being an attorney licensed
> in Idaho, please indicate.

I owe you no personal information, be it gender, sexual preferences, favorite brand of toothpaste, or professional status. You are the one who keeps asking.

As for expertise on legal matters, which I have studied in depth not to become an attorney but because anyone hoping to make a difference in the US must understand how the judiciary works, my arguments rise or fall on their own merits.

The converse fact that your statements about the Daybell-Vallow mess, your predictions, have proved uniformly false implies a certain conclusion about your grasp of the US constitution and about our relative credibility.

Indeed, your reiterated assertion that an understanding of Idaho criminal law is essential to familiarity with the US constitution speaks volumes. The Fifth Amendment is prior to every single rule or decision in any state in the Union.

It may be that questions about your gender arise from the primitive, insecure, part of the male brain that doesn't want to be 'bested' by a female.

I know that I, personally, would never date a woman who could beat me arm-wrestling...  Yeah, I know, I'm a primitive, but at least I'm the right color for it.

GNPE's obsession with my genitals is indeed bizarre. But on the other hand he does admittedly feel more comfortable around people who assuage his insecurities on that score every day at the beach.

ETA: I'd never arm wrestle you since I'd feel terrible if something broke off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2022 07:56PM by Lot's Wife.

I had to laugh - true story:

In my ward growing up, a Tongan family moved in, and the father and son were doing bathroom installations in new apartment construction. Both men were roughly the shape and size of a refrigerator with a head on top.

They decided to have an arm wrestling contest. Son managed to snap father's forearm. Bummer.

Father spent the next six weeks or so carrying bathtubs up apartment stairs by himself using one arm. One tough dude.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GNPE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

>

>
> The end result is
> that your preferred system would require the Dems
> to reduce their ability to maximize their voting
> power in certain circumstances.
>
> I repeat: you are requesting that the Dems
> unilaterally disarm. If you have facts to dispute
> that, present them.

>
> Brilliant. DJT became president despite the fact
> that he lost the popular vote. The solution you
> are proposing now would make that easier to do in
> the future.


>
> Facts are indeed pesky things. So how do you
> reconcile your view, repeated long after they were
> discredited, that the answer to disproportionate
> GOP power is to disarm the Democrats?
>

Please kindly explain how ‘in certain circumstances’ (What circumstances?) the Dems might be disadvantaged

Or ‘disarm the Democrats’

Or ‘make that easier to do in the future’?

This whole exaggerated rant of yours regarding gender / genitals is Centered around this: “she (?)” which I believe is - was just an expression of mild curiosity, not anything prurient or extraordinarily intrusive given your use of ‘wife’ and certainly doesn’t place a shadow over your opinions or perspectives, does it?

Peace Out & Chill!

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please kindly explain how ‘in certain
> circumstances’ (What circumstances?) the Dems
> might be disadvantaged

I did. Twice. It's in English without too many large words, so you should be able to comprehend it.


-------------
> This whole exaggerated rant of yours regarding
> gender / genitals is Centered around this: “she
> (?)” which I believe is - was just an expression
> of mild curiosity, not anything prurient or
> extraordinarily intrusive given your use of
> ‘wife’ and certainly doesn’t place a shadow
> over your opinions or perspectives, does it?

Here it is again: the horse that you won't let die.

You assert that my use of the word "wife" makes my gender an object of reasonable inquiry. Once may be fine, even twice. But you've done it a dozen times over the years.

And how exactly is "wife" more inviting of your gender-based curiousty than "guy" in "GNPE," "elder" in "elderolddog," or "brother" in "Brother of Jerry?" Have you ever asked either of them if they are men?

Of course not. You view women's names as a proper topic for intrusive questions because they refer to women. Why is that, GNPE? Why are women less deserving of their privacy than men?


----------------
> Peace Out & Chill!

You launch several challenges and then ask me to chill rather than reply in kind.

No.

I’m not even concerned with any poster’s genitals, your statement is a reflection of Your insecurities, not any of mine.

That said, using the word ‘wife’ puts it out, don’t ya think?

L.D. / Idaho proceedings: up until the time that she invokes the 5th (if - when Unknown to me personally) police or just about anyone could ask just about any pertinent question.

My suggestion is to abate the hyperbole in what U post, we’re here to share, & learn, at least that’s me; I hope I’ve never thrown mud or denigrated anyone, especially here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 01:21AM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m not even concerned with any poster’s
> genitals, your statement is a reflection of Your
> insecurities, not any of mine.

And yet it is you, not I, who keep raising the issue of gender.


--------------
> That said, using the word ‘wife’ puts it out,
> don’t ya think?

You see what I mean? You say you don't obsess about the question but then immediately raise it again.

No, my using the word "wife" does not raise the gender question any more than your using the word "guy" in your nickname does. That you do not see your double standard is revealing, don't you think?


--------------
> L.D. / Idaho proceedings: up until the time that
> she invokes the 5th (if - when Unknown to me
> personally) police or just about anyone could ask
> just about any pertinent question.

Not without a Miranda warning, and not by a judge: ever. A judge may not ask a question of a defendant, or subject, that would be incriminating. Why? Because the judge speaks as an agent of the state and her orders bear the imprimatur of the judiciary.

But you went further than that. You asserted in no uncertain terms that the judge could, and almost certainly would, order Lori to produce the children and hold her in contempt if she did not. That is not just "asking. . . a pertinent question:" it is using the authority of the state to coerce a defendant into self-incriminating actions. There is no court in the country where a judge would do something so blatantly unconstitutional.

That is an example of a more important fact: namely, your assurance that if I pointed to errors in your analysis you would correct them. I provided the examples--and do so again here--and you have still not admitted that you were wrong.

I do not believe you are forthright enough to admit your mistakes. When push comes to shove, you don't come through. Instead, you shift the topic to the matter of "tone"


--------------
> My suggestion is to abate the hyperbole in what U
> post, we’re here to share, & learn, at least
> that’s me; I hope I’ve never thrown mud or
> denigrated anyone, especially here.

Really? Your comparing me to Trump was not "throwing mud?" It wasn't "denigrating anyone?"

Do you claim now that this statement--"LW's objections to the NPVIC are seriously if not fatally Flawed both in philosophy & in application!"--was not hyperbolic?

You would have us believe that describing my position with the all-caps sentence--"THIS IS FALSE."--was not bombastic and overwrought?

No, GNPE, you are in fact hyperbolic, condescending, and misogynistic--and despite your promises, you never correct your errors.

If you direct your boorishness towards me, I will call it out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 02:48AM by Lot's Wife.

Just how did I compare U to trump?

That’s an amazing stretch!

You wrote this less than 12 hours ago that I communicate with you just "how tRump calls people who disagree with him 'enemies' to denigrate / dehumanize them."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2434229,2435691#msg-2435691
---------------

Did you forget that? Did it go down the memory hole like your promise to correct the record if I pointed out errors in your analysis?

What's the point of communicating with a man with a Mike Flynn memory?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 04:07AM by Lot's Wife.

I didn’t say or suggest U claimed anyone to be an enemy, that’s DJT,

Did U answer my Qs regarding how the NPV could or might disadvantage the democrats in certain circumstances?

Again, What might those circumstances be?

The Dog Whistle against the NPVIC is and has been for a long, long time that ‘ the big states would determine the outcome of presidential elections’ but this ( unspecific in details as to how many big states) is FALSE as any reasonable counting of actual votes proves:

- Individual voters in states don’t vote in blocks, the % for opposing candidates in each state is telling.

- in the last presidential election, California voters cast 11% of presidential ballots, Texas 7%; that clearly shows the ‘big state claim’ is false, whether one uses caps or not.

I raised the Q ONCE about Your screen name, didn’t repeat it, I didn’t question the validity of your posts or your opinions or perspectives around your gender…
If asking a Question is somehow ‘wrong’, then that’s ‘wrong’



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 09:30AM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I raised the Q ONCE about Your screen name,
> didn’t repeat it,

You prevaricate. You asked the question a few times two years ago and you have repeated it several times over the last few days. Anyone who has followed the discussion can see that.


------------------------
> I didn’t question the
> validity of your posts or your opinions or
> perspectives around your gender…

The question is whether you treat others with the same condescension as you treat me. You can assert that you do not, but the evidence is there for everyone to reach his or her own conclusion.

LW- I’m still waiting for your explanation regarding the Democrats & the NPVIC

Okay. Last time.

If only Democratic states adopt your cherished scheme, what happens?

Dems win a presidential election by 5% and the electoral college registers that as a 0.0005% margin because the Republican states won't play your game.

GOP wins by 0.0005% and because of your scheme the Dems throw their electoral votes to the winner, who is elected in the electoral college by 20%. The Republican victor then walks away describing his victory as a landslide conveying an overwhelming voter mandate. The propaganda advantage is significant in a world dominated by bumper-sticker politics.

So tell me how that represents an improvement on the existing electoral system.

I'll wait.

Republicans are increasingly restricting minorities' right to vote and the supreme court seems poised to enhance the Red states' ability to do that. Thus the US is becoming less democratic as the electoral system skews ever more in the GOP's favor.

GNPE's beloved proposal would make the GOP's success in national elections look more legitimate because it would expand the margin of victory in the EC. His idea would give them "cover" for their takeover of the voting system.

That is not "progress" towards more democratic politics.

I am deeply hesitant to side with GNPE over LW, but neither of these issues seems as clear cut as LW is presenting them. [I also with trepidation disagree with Roger Penrose on his interpretation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, a subject that much to my amazement actually shows up here from time to time - subject for another time. Don't want to wake El Gato or Henry]

I understand 5th Amendment and all that, but Richard Nixon, though he resisted mightily, was finally required to turn over his tape recordings, knowing that they were incriminating. The intricacies of the rules of evidence is way beyond my pay grade, and I am not sure how this little squabble between LW and GNPE started, and what the suppositions were, so let me state what I think the case is.

If Daybell had already been charged with the murder of her children, then it seems pretty obvious to me that 5th amendment limitations would apply. The judge could not jail her for refusing to produce evidence of her guilt.

However, if it was before the children's bodies had been found, and Daybell was claiming they were alive and well, and she had not been charged with a crime, isn't there some way she could be compelled to produce evidence, if not direct testimony, just as Nixon was compelled to produce the tape recordings?

I'm not sure at what point in the investigation GNPE was suggesting the judge should threaten contempt of court, but it would only make sense to me at a point when the children were still presumed/claimed to be alive.

I'll put NPVIC my comments in a separate post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 02:53PM by Brother Of Jerry.

>However, if it was before the children's bodies had been found, and Daybell was claiming they were alive and well, and she had not been charged with a crime, isn't there some way she could be compelled to produce evidence, if not direct testimony, just as Nixon was compelled to produce the tape recordings?

>I'm not sure at what point in the investigation GNPE was suggesting the judge should threaten contempt of court, but it would only make sense to me at a point when the children were still presumed/claimed this discussion beginning on March 5

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2289467,2289467#msg-2289467

To address your point, at that time she had been criminally charged with two felony counts of desertion and nonsupport of dependent children, as well as misdemeanor charges of resisting or obstructing officers, criminal solicitation to commit a crime, and contempt of court.

It was a criminal case at that point. I will add that the 5th amendment applies even if no criminal charges have been brought - example: a certain former justice department official who recently took the fifth 100 times before a congressional committee hearing.

You're confusing the rules of evidence with the fifth amendment and a judge's powers. They are all different.

The rules of evidence are limitations on evidence that are used to ensure that the presumably stupid jury is unequipped to evaluate objectively. That has nothing to do with the right against self-incrimination, which is has a different set of rules and precedents.

The issue GNPE misses is that in the US system as opposed to the continental system, the judge is a arbiter, a referee, and not the instigator of legal action. The way things work in the US is that a prosecutor requests the court to enforce its demands and the defense pushes back. The judge then decides which side has the better legal argument and rules accordingly. If a judge were, as GNPE advocates, to bypass that process and issue his or her own orders about substantive issues, that ruling would be reversed upon appeal because the judge is not supposed to be an active participant in the process.

The Nixon case isn't apposite here for a couple of reasons. First, the subpoena was issued by Congress and was not part of a criminal proceeding; and second, it was a request for documents as opposed to a question whose answer would itself be incriminating. Lori and Chad cannot be placed in a situation where they are forced to inculpate themselves--which is why courts do not order mafiosi to produce the body or go to jail for contempt. The idea is, frankly, absurd.

GNPE keeps saying the judge could demand that Lori and Chad produce the children or the bodies and then find them guilty of contempt for not doing so. That is not how it works. There are two forms of contempt. The first is when a defendant fails to perform a duty imposed after a full hearing, one initiated by the prosecuting attorney. The judge in this case could not issue such a finding because there has been no full hearing/adjudication held. By issuing the demand on his or her own initiative, the judge would become a participant and not a neutral arbiter.

The second--the kind that a judge can offer on his or her own volition--is for misbehavior in a court proceeding. That would be things like cursing at the other party, insulting the judge, or intimidating a witness, disobeying a discovery order. But those are process-based penalties, nothing like the VD judge ordering the defendants to do something sua sponte.

So what GNPE is so confidently demanding is that the judge unilaterally take a step that the prosecutor must initiate, whose fulfillment would violate the fifth amendment, and that isn't within the judge's discretion to punish without there first being a hearing or trial.

You really should stay out of the legal business!
________________________________________

"GNPE keeps saying the judge could demand that Lori and Chad produce the children or the bodies and then find them guilty of contempt for not doing so. That is not how it works.

COMMENT: It is within the judge's power to issue orders related to the procedural aspects of the case, in the interest of justice, independent of any party's request, though it is unusual. Often, a party attorney will request one thing, and the judge will issue an order that is alternative to what was actually requested. If such an order is issued, properly noticed, and disobeyed, a separate proceeding for contempt could then be set by the judge, ordering the offender to appear. If they failed to appear, they could be 'held in contempt" and fined or imprisoned.
____________________________________________

So what GNPE is so confidently demanding is that the judge unilaterally take a step that the prosecutor must initiate, whose fulfillment would violate the fifth amendment, and that isn't within the judge's discretion to punish without there first being a hearing or trial.

COMMENT: The judge can 'unilaterally' do almost anything in the interest of justice, if not 'prejudicial' to any party. In fact, a judge can unilaterally ask a defendant (or other witness) his own legally proper question while the witness is under oath on the witness stand. This is unusual, but it happens. If the person then takes the fifth, so be it. However, if the witness just refuses to answer, he or she can be held in contempt. Of course, if a judge oversteps his or her bounds, the result might be the subject of an appeal.

In short, you seem to be confusing 'rules' with what is the 'general practice.'

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really should stay out of the legal business!

I'm not in the legal business. As to who has a better understanding of constitutional law, we'll see whether your "prophesy" about Dobbs pans out.


______________________________________

> COMMENT: It is within the judge's power to issue
> orders related to the procedural aspects of the
> case, in the interest of justice, independent of
> any party's request, though it is unusual. Often,
> a party attorney will request one thing, and the
> judge will issue an order that is alternative to
> what was actually requested.

You are describing the process in civil court. In criminal proceedings, judges are far more circumspect.

> If such an order is
> issued, properly noticed, and disobeyed, a
> separate proceeding for contempt could then be set
> by the judge, ordering the offender to appear. If
> they failed to appear, they could be 'held in
> contempt" and fined or imprisoned.

That is correct. It also reveals that you are a civil lawyer and not a criminal one, for what you describe does not apply to potentially incriminatory orders.

That's the bottom line, isn't it. You and GNPE are asserting something that would be perfectly appropriate if our only concern were getting to the children. But the judge did not do that.

Why not? Because of the fifth amendment.

____________________________________________
> COMMENT: The judge can 'unilaterally' do almost
> anything in the interest of justice, if not
> 'prejudicial' to any party.

That's what I just said. Asking Lori to produce the children on penalty of contempt would assuredly be "prejudicial."


-------------------
> In fact, a judge can
> unilaterally ask a defendant (or other witness)
> his own legally proper question while the witness
> is under oath on the witness stand.

"Legally proper." Precisely. The Idaho judge did not do what GNPE said she would because doing so would not have been "legally proper."


> This is
> unusual, but it happens.

Again, it happens a lot more frequently in your civil proceedings than in a criminal court.


----------------------
> If the person then takes
> the fifth, so be it. However, if the witness just
> refuses to answer, he or she can be held in
> contempt. Of course, if a judge oversteps his or
> her bounds, the result might be the subject of an
> appeal.

Uh, yeah. That's what I said.


------------------
> In short, you seem to be confusing 'rules' with
> what is the 'general practice.'

And you seem to be repeating my argument--that a judge can only act when doing so would not be prejudicial, that a judge can not compel a defendant to incriminate herself, that a judge's questions must be "legally proper" and that a judge's mistakes would be appealed--and then saying that my argument proves that I am wrong.


-----------------
Bottom line: You are defending GNPE's declaration that the judge could, and would, compel Lori and/or Chad to produce the children. But the judge did not do that because of the factors I laid out and that you now parrot, with some errors in weighting because of your lack of experience in criminal law, as if they were new to the discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 07:02PM by Lot's Wife.

I’m NOT DEMANDING ANYTHING!

Please stop putting words in my mouth, ty

I apologize. I don't want to take up room that you need for your foot.

Thanks for the pointers. I figured if the GNPE maneuver were really possible, the judge would have done it. In the unlikely event the judge was not aware of the option, this is such a high profile case, legal pundits from everywhere would have been screaming to high heaven for her to do it. I’m quite comfortable going with the wisdom of the crowd on this one.

I don’t know that I have ever watched a complete episode of Law and Order, though I must have somewhere along the line. My TV legal training was LA Law and Boston Legal. Oh, and Ally McBeal. ;)

"However, if it was before the children's bodies had been found, and Daybell was claiming they were alive and well, and she had not been charged with a crime, isn't there some way she could be compelled to produce evidence, if not direct testimony, just as Nixon was compelled to produce the tape recordings?"

COMMENT: The 5th Amendment applies to oral testimony, not providing evidence generally. Thus, although Daybell could not be compelled to answer any question that she believed violated her right against self-incrimination, including the question: "Where are your children now, if they are alive?" she *could* be compelled by subpoena to produce them (if in fact she could), and also to provide DNA samples, hair samples, blood samples, documents, etc. She could also be subject to a search and seizure warrant for evidence existing in her home, or other property. (Of course, other rules of evidence might be applicable as to these other matters, depending upon the circumstances.
_____________________________________________

I am deeply hesitant to side with GNPE over LW.

COMMENT: Yes indeed. Go against the pronouncements of the Prophetess at your own peril. Logic be damned! :)
_____________________________________________

"I also with trepidation disagree with Roger Penrose on his interpretation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, a subject that much to my amazement actually shows up here from time to time - subject for another time. Don't want to wake El Gato or Henry."

COMMENT: Why would you be afraid of waking me up to comment on this or anything else on RfM? When have my comments on the Board been shown to be ill-informed, lacking substance, or otherwise irrational, illogical, or lacking in interest? I assume your fear is only of the possibility of being pointedly challenged. Perhaps because you might actually learn something from me, as I have from you many times.

Finally, I agree with you that Penrose was wrong on his expanded interpretation of Godel's theorem, however generally right about his non-algorithmic assessment of mind, consciousness, and human cognition. (Yes, you did wake me up!) I would be interested to read your explanation as to why *you* believe he was wrong. I would explain it myself, but let's be honest; no one here cares about such matters--however important such positions are to one's exMormon worldview.

Your post has left me a bit cranky today! Maybe it would be better not to mention my name at all. I regret this post already. Carry on.

> COMMENT: Yes indeed. Go against the
> pronouncements of the Prophetess at your own
> peril. Logic be damned! :)

I am that rare prophetess who thinks that her pronouncements should be tested against the evidence when it becomes available. Thus the same standard for my views as I insist on applying to yours.

We'll see whether your "logic" or mine is correct when it comes to your insistence that the Dobbs ruling dictates that only the states, and not Congress, can legislate on abortion.

Deuteronomy 18:22. Hold me to it, as I will you.

Henry apparently doesn't like it when uppity women challenge his views. Poor Henry. Life was so much better when women were subjugated.

I wish we felt confident that the "were" in your last sentence is in the proper tense.

I'm not going to argue that point. :/

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I can't afford to hire an editor. :-//

First let me rant a bit about the excuses given for why the Electoral College is So Important.

"It prevents the big states from determining the outcome of the elections." Yeah, right. Have you noticed how many of the battleground states are big states? PA, MI, FL (though it is not very swingy lately), GA, AZ. The battlegrounds are most definitely not the small states. The only reason any presidential candidate ever sets foot in Utah is either during a primary, or to make the half hour drive up to Park City/Deer Valley to vacuum up some cash.

The obvious affection for the E.C. is that it gives small states vastly disproportionate power because of the number of senators that represent states with minisucle populations, but still two senators qualifying them for those two votes in the E.C.

Even more importantly, the way the E.C. is implemented, it doesn't matter at all if a candidate wins a state by 50.1% or 75%, same number of electoral votes in the win column (Nebraska and Maine excepted, more on that later)

So, with the current E.C., there is no point in campaigning in a state that is safely red or blue. Fighting for a few extra votes one way or the other makes no difference at all except in states where the election is close enough that a few extra votes could swing the election. That is the definition of a battleground state.

The E.C. means a presidential candidate can safely ignore most states unless they want to go to a non-battleground state to give support to candidates for state offices. That's why Utah never gets a presidential candidate conducting a rally. they have better ways to spend their limited time and money.

So, small states are disproportionately important, and don't need to be fought over, because marginal changes in the vote, in the vast majority of states, are irrelevant.


If there were no E.C., then a candidate getting an extra 20,000 votes in Utah (or any other state) would actually matter, regardless of whether their party won or lost the state in the E.C. sense. Campaigning for a few extra votes anywhere and everywhere would matter. Yeah, big states would still get the most attention, because getting an extra half percent in California is more important than an extra 2% in Utah, but there would actually be a compelling reason to spend some time in all of the states.

But that is more work, and costs more money, and if the E.C. already gives you a lock on low population rural states that enables you to rule as a minority, you are going to be dead set against change.


Which is where we find ourselves. We get ridiculous lectures about the virtues of minority rule [dressed up as "this is a republic, not a democracy", ignoring the fact that it is both, they are not mutually exclusive terms] and hell will freeze over before the small states will give up their power. Unfortunately, to amend the Constitution, the small states have to agree, guaranteeing that hell is going to stay quite toasty warm.


OK, Constitutional amendment is the proper fix, but that is off the table. NPVIC is not a proper solution. It is a desperate dodge to break the system and glue something back together that will approximate a popular vote result. It's ugly, and philosophically grotesque, but it looks to me like it is utilitarian, if just barely.

As I understand it, LW is proposing that all states adopt the system used by Nebraska and Maine, where Electoral votes are awarded by congressional district rather than by state. The two votes representing senators are still awarded based on the state level vote.

That would do nothing to change the fact that states with small populations would control a vastly disproportionate number of senate votes in the E.C.

The Nebraska system would help make the votes represented by House members in each state more equitably distributed, but not by much.

In states like WY, MT and ND, there is only one House seat, so the 30 to 40% of the voters there that vote for the other party would have no voice in the EC. Even in Utah, with 42% give or take that vote Blue would get no voice because the state is gerrymandered to make sure that all the districts are at least 50% Red.

The only places where the votes of citizens that voted for the candidate that lost the statewide race would get some representation in the E.C. would be the larger states, depending on how gerrymandered they were.

That's something, but it is not much. And SCOTUS has shown no interest in stopping gerrymandering.


If NPVIC is approved, I see it giving the same result as direct popular vote election of the president, with a couple unfortunate side effects that don't really change the end result.

Thumbnail description of NPVIC - National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: States can assign Electoral Votes as they choose. The states who agree to the compact will select Electors based on the national popular vote. If Candidate A wins the national popular vote, all the NPVIC states will cast all their electoral votes for that candidate, regardless of the vote in their individual states. The Compact only takes effect when 270 or more electoral votes would be cast, enough to determine the outcome of a presidential election.

For all the gory details in four part harmony:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Side effects:
Yes, it is mostly Blue states that want this. It is Blue states that are being badly disadvantaged by the current system. Yes, they would be signing away their rights to have their individual state be carried by one candidate, even if the other candidate won nationally, which LW has pointed out. That is the theory. In practice, they are only signing away the right to back a candidate that won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College. If their candidate won the state and won the Electoral College too, while technically, they have signed away the right to back that outcome too, that's the outcome they wanted. It is also the outcome they would get, so the fact that the signed the Compact makes no difference at all in that situation.

The Utilitarian part - if a candidate wins the popular vote and the NPVIC is in force, that candidate will win the presidency, regardless of what rights were supposedly signed away in the Compact. Yeah, its ugly, but it could work.


Second side effect - since it is mostly Blue states that are signing on, if NPVIC is in place, when a Blue candidate wins the popular vote, they will likely get little more than the electoral votes they win through NPVIC, roughly 270 votes. the states not in the Compact are traditional Red states anyhow.

On the other hand, if the Red candidate wins nationally, they will get the 270+ NPVIC votes, and most, or even possibly all the electoral votes from the traditionally Red states, so they will win an overwhelming, near unanimous majority of the electoral votes.

This near unanimous majority would be a meaningless artifact of NPVIC, desperate kludge that it is. It would not indicate near unanimous support in the country for the Red party. But I would bet my bottom dollar that the Red party would spin it that way for all they were worth.

That would be a problem. Possibly even a fatal flaw in the system. I didn't say NPVIC was a good system. These are desperate times. It is a desperate measure, not likely to happen.



If I were a Seer™, here's what I might see: after two or three more elections where the minority candidate wins the E.C., the majority really do revolt, and the ensuing near collapse of the nation scares people enough that they do amend the Constitution to abandon the Electoral College. That will take a really enormous scare.

I am not a licensed Seer. Your mileage may vary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2022 05:22PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I did read it, though I should go back and read it more closely. I just don't buy the dire defects you see. To me, marginal vote count changes would actually count for something under NPVIC, even if they were not enough to change the outcome of the statewide vote, making it worthwhile for a candidate to campaign in all states.

It would also assure that the popular vote winner would be elected president. The downside would be that the Electoral College vote totals would be severely distorted, and essentially meaningless. I fear partisans would try to argue that the E.C. results were not meaningless, and their partisans would buy that argument, because it would be exactly what they want to hear.

I also think there is considerable possibility that SCOTUS would declare that NPVIC did not pass constitutional muster. It might meet the letter of what is in the Constitution, but it would be a clear violation of what the founders intended, though what they did intend (that Electors could in theory vote to override an egregious result produced by the voters) has never actually happened in practice.

While this SCOTUS seems very impressed with "letter of the law" arguments, they also seem willing to embrace "spirit of the law" arguments when that they confer a partisan advantage. Yeah, call me cynical.

I propose the American Voters State & Federal Voting App, available through the Google Play Store and the Apple Store . . . in app purchases exist.

Sometime between 7am and 7pm on election day you log in, confirm your ID, get a text message code, then log in to your appropriate ballot (so you can vote from anywhere with wifi) and vote.

For the one National race, the Presidency, if the top two vote-getters are within a certain range of each other, they sumo wrestle two out of three falls to determine who will be the new President.

Nope.

- not all voters are computer literate / savvy

- too much opportunity for hacking

- no paper back-up

more I’m sure, but the above kill it

Okay, and since you're taking it seriously, what about the two out of three sumo wrestling bouts for the presidential contenders?

Did that pass your muster?

We can transfer money between people or people and their banks over the internet, and file our taxes over the internet.

The internet is not considered secure enough that any US election is conducted over the internet, and rightly so. People apparently have no idea how secure US elections are. It is much tougher to insert fraudulent votes into the system than it is to insert fraudulent checks into the banking system.

Oh, it would be easy to create a fraudulent ballot, or check. Every check you receive has the account number, the bank routing number, and the owner's signature right there on the check for you to copy. Making a fake check is trivial. Not getting caught when you try to cash it is the hard part.

Same thing with voting. Not getting caught is a very hard part. There is a high level of redundancy in voting documents, so that if something gets changed, it has to change in a whole bunch of places in a coordinated manner or the change is going to get noticed.

I thought the vote "audit" that was conducted in Maricopa County, AZ, was hilarious. It was supposed to take 2 weeks. It ended yup taking 3 months, and the final result was that Biden got a few hundred more votes, not enough to matter, and the direct opposite of what was predicted.

We will never know what actually happened, but here is what I think happened ---

After four weeks or so, the "auditors" discovered there was no way they could make it look like there were discrepancies in the vote, without there being evidence that they were the ones that created the discrepancies.

At that point they asked lawyers "hey, what are the chances we could get sued if we get caught making false allegations?" The answer: "oh, 100%. Slam dunk."

Then they asked "what are the chances we could go to prison?" Answer: "not quite a slam dunk. You never know for sure with a jury, but yeah, you could go to prison."

So they thought about it for 12 weeks, and tried to come up with a way to declare the election stolen that wouldn't land them in jail, and finally gave up.

The Ninja <whatever their full name was> had planned to do "audits" in all the battleground states. Instead they declared bankruptcy and left no forwarding address.


There are very serious safeguards against fraudulent ballots. More serious than the safeguards against fraudulent bank checks, and those are pretty serious.

Using the internet in any way to conduct elections - not going to happen.

I was introduced to my representative in Congress yesterday, a local man who was born in Port Angeles.

However I still say that the size of the house should increase with the population.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However I still say that the size of the house
> should increase with the population.

Yes, you did say that. Because 1/435 is less than 10/4350.

But what keeping the ratio constant as you suggest would mean is that there should be 1,489 Representatives in the House. Are you going to squeeze that number of people into the existing chamber--perhaps sitting on each other's laps?--or do you propose to build a new Capitol to accommodate the tripling of the size of Congress that you so sincerely want?

And what about office buildings? The three existing ones are already full. I'm sure you've thought this through. Do you recommend building another two or three such structures or should the new Representatives cast their votes via Zoom?

How about committee assignments? Do committees of 20 members become committees of 80 members? Where do they meet? Does it worry you that they won't have personal relationships to facilitate their work?

It's almost like the country considered the logistical issues back in 1913 when it rejected your idea and froze the number of Representatives. Isn't it?

I don’t pretend to have answers for all of your questions, but I’d be blind and/or stupid not to see that lobbyists have a stranglehold on members’ attention/ focus - time & campaign funding…

Perhaps some of this c/ would be made easy - easier with virtual meetings.

For Sure: everyday citizens would benefit by better access coupled with less financing pressure / leverage on our reps.

Reform instead of rebellion/ revolution



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2022 12:21AM by GNPE.

In all seriousness, increasing the number of representatives may give citizens more access to their particular Congressman but in a much larger chamber those representatives would have less access to the real decision makers. So the citizens' voice would not carry any further than it does today.

And the logistics of virtual meetings wouldn't work either since most of what is done in Congress is through informal conversations in the hallways or over a beer in the evening. The breakdown in personal relationships is one of the factors contributing to our present mess.

As for financial corruption, I'm confident that there is more than enough money for the rich and powerful to continue buying the results they want irrespective of the number of people between whom the funds are divided. In fact, bribing people may well become easier given that the oversight committees and regulatory bodies are already failing to keep up with 435 potential, and frequently actual, malefactors.

So U prefer the current situation?

I seem to sense that there is a huge number of citizens who disagree & lots (forgive pun, please) of them own weapons & are predisposed to use them to get their way…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2022 01:07AM by GNPE.

I think your solution is marginally worse than the present system. More importantly, it would detract from the reforms that are crucially necessary--like campaign finance reform, equitable voting rules, the enforcement of the ethics code regarding insider trading and blatantly false and inflammatory public statements, etc.

Given the mess we are in now--including prominently the supreme court--I'm not sure the requisite fundamental reforms are presently possible. But that's where the focus should be. Rearranging the seats on our legislature-cum-luxury-liner won't, in my view, help much.

I don’t see any path to realize any of the changes you suggest.

. . . bottom line is some of us want to be able to choose our leaders.
"Other side" wants to impose themselves as our rulers - regardless of what we may wish.

Whatever clever system is worked out to ensure rule of, for, and by the people, the would-be-rulers are going to game that system to their objective (i.e. imposed authoritarianism).

Fairness & equality is a friend to some; an enemy to others.
This needs to be clearly seen and accepted.

So, where are we now, today?

Women are finding it necessary to delete period tracking apps.
That's where.

Let that sink in for a minute.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1053604531.3172/mwo,x1000,ipad_2_snap-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg

+1

‘Bottom line’ is a conclusion with a bit of assumption built in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2022 06:07PM by GNPE.

Way up thread LW asked if I was really a man.

Funny you should ask. While that was a rhetorical/sarcastic/comic question, that was an issue with my original username on RFM, which was "winter". I was living in the northern Great Plains at the time, which was famous for two things, winter and Norwegians, and for public radio fans, Lake Wobegon, which was basically Norwegians. "winter" seemed like a good defining characteristic. I came to regret choosing lower case, and then I moved to Utah, so a good time to change.

Winter is a pretty non-gendered username, though I know of one woman named Winter. On RFM back in the day, I was occasionally referred to as "she", I was pleased that people couldn't tell the difference, or that an assumption of female was credible, perhaps even likely. I figured I was doing something right.

Yeah, O/T reply to an O/T thread. O/O/T? :)

Okay, so we've figured out your gender identity. That leaves elderodddog.

Any bets on him? Was he always an elder or did he begin his odyssey in the relief society like all good hearted folk?

What odds will you give?

HOLD THE PHONE THERE LW!

now it’s U who wants to learn the gender of posters?

OMGosh !!!

Have U ever disclosed yours voluntarily / spontaneously???

I know the genders of both elder odd dog and Brother Mahonri. My asking was a joke.

Have I ever disclosed my gender voluntarily?

Yes.

I'm taking bets on my gender!



edited to add: I want to be credible to men and incredible to women...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 09:39AM by elderolddog.

I will admit to having hedged my bets by describing you as elder odd dog. That leaves some room for if you change your mind.

Rest assured, GNPE, I'll let you know if EOD does change their gender!