Posted on 05/07/2018 2:19:36 PM PDT by tcrlaf
This doesn’t require any change to the Constitution.
The Constitution reserved this power for the state legislatures.
From Article II:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”
There is no Constitutional requirement to have a statewide vote for presidential candidates. There is for Representatives and Senators, but not for Presidents.
It is not unconstitutional.
Article II allows the state legislatures to select electors in whatever manner they wish.
There is no requirement that regular citizens be allowed to vote for the President at all.
Good luck on the road to 270! Where else do they believe they can win?
I would agree except for Socialists (no longer call them Dims) cheat with dead, multiple, illegal, hanging chads, and lawsuits.
Always remember that the socialists took their Bush/Gore case to the Florida Supreme Court. They ruled in favor of Gore by changing the rules post election. The only reason Bush won was because the USSC said that Florida couldn't change their own laws without new legislation.
.
Not constitutional!
Also not in accordance with the SCOTUS “one man, one vote” decision.
The states must count votes.
.
Because on the road to 270 , they do not want to award their EV not Republican who gets the most votes nationally.
This looks like Chaos / corruption if nationwide the election margin averages a hand ful of votes per polling location or district. MN stole election for Franken. The idea of recounting the entire country is insane but what Dems thrive on.
The People of Connecticut are only harming themselves by getting involved with this crap.They just dealt themselves out of the deal.
They will be dependent on the larger States now for any political influence.
The problem here is that while Article II gives states the right to choose electors, it does not allow them to violate Article IV, Clause I:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,..”
This compact means that state electors would no longer represent their state, but the voters of the several states. That is clearly unconstitutional.
Interesting in looking at the popular vote and the elected
President very few won with a majority of over 50% of
the total votes cast.
They are all going to look pretty silly giving their electoral votes to Trump.
It is constitutional, provided the states decide to do it by themselves with the collusion of the compact. We do not vote for President, the Electoral College does that. The states don't count the votes. The Electors vote and the Federal Government count the votes. For decades, the general popular vote was known as the "beauty contest". Everyone knew that the real vote was by the electors and the states chose from two slates of Electors. Almost universally for the last 100 years or so, the states chose either the Democrat or Republic slate based on who won the popular vote.
This is the third thread today on this news item, perhaps more. Here is a comment that I made on the first thread that summarized the issues. You might want to pour a drink before you begin reading, it’s a little long.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3653269/posts?page=141#141
Only deep blue lefty states have passed this. When they get an actual red state, or a purple state like Florida, to sign up for this, wake me up, until this is just seems like leftist state legislature butthurt.
We have a winner Bob, let’s show him the fine prizes that we have for him tonight.
FR has had long discussions on this scheme as states have joined the compact over the years. I recall that more Freepers understood what the states could do under the Constitution, but my memory might has been modified over the years. We are about 100 EV before the compact kicks in, it won’t happen.
There is not even any such thing as a “national popular vote” as these are just a combining of stats from completely different elections.
The legislature of this state has just undermined their role as a member of the Union.
Since when have Nutmeggers ever been right?
Doesn’t that disenfranchise the Connecticut voter.
Can this be challenged for violating the Constitution?
I believe you mean Article IV, Section 4.
That provision (the guarantee clause) ensures that each state be run as a representative democracy.
Since the state allows its people to elect the state legislators, this requirement is met. Those elected representatives are then allowed to choose electors as they see fit.
The Constitution requires that the states be run as representational democracies, and that the senate and house are elected by the people - but it does not have that requirement for the electoral college members.
My thought as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.