Thank you so much for that information. But I think the intention was to assign the electoral votes to the will of that state’s citizens, not other States. And what about the states that sign up illegals to vote when they give them driver’s licenses? And now ballot harvesting? Are we supposed to just let it go, saying it’s somehow legal and there’s nothing we can do?
But I think the intention was to assign the electoral votes to the will of that state’s citizens, not other States.
The intent was that it reflect the will of the state's legislature, as elected by the citizens of the state. However, original intent has fared poorly in the federal courts. We live under the Living Constitution.
And what about the states that sign up illegals to vote when they give them driver’s licenses? And now ballot harvesting?
There is nothing specific in the Constitution that addresses these issues. We've had shady electoral processes ever since Andrew Jackson introduced broad-based democracy into our political system. The courts have been lenient in addressing these issues.
Are we supposed to just let it go, saying it’s somehow legal and there’s nothing we can do?
Unfortunately, yes. Only a constitutional amendment can address something so basic and so hard-coded into the Constitution.
Here is how I think it will play out. Let's assume for the moment that enough states sign on to the pact to activate it and Congress approves it.
If the Supreme Court strikes the pact down, we've dodged a bullet. If it accepts the pact, it will create such chaos that Congress will quickly write an amendment ending the Electoral College and going to direct popular vote for president. Note that Andrew Jackson proposed this in his first State of the Union letter in 1829, so it's not a new idea. To avoid further chaos, I would expect quick ratification by the states.