this is unconstitutional. A state can’t dictate how a federal election should be decided.
Time for Supreme court to shut it down. This needs to be set by an amendment?
We can all discuss this at a convention of states.
States have the power to decide how to apportion their electors either proportionally or winner take all.
I’m not sure if apportioning them to “national popular vote winner” qualifies as a form of winner take all because it does open the possibility that the state could vote by a majority for one candidate while the electors are assigned to a different candidate who won the national popular vote (which isn’t a thing, constitutionally speaking).
There is also the guarantee clause specifying a republican form of government and that may disallow for direct election of the president or a national popular vote unless they amend the constitution.
But the Constitution does basically leave it to the State Legislatures to determine how a state’s EV’s will be cast.
I’m afraid that they just might get away with this.
Alas, a state may decide how its electoral votes are decided. Normal variance is whether “winner takes all” or “proportional electors”.
Careful how this is attacked in court, SCOTUS may decide it’s ok.
There are about six weeks between Election Day and the Electoral College vote in a presidential election year. During that time, any state that has signed this silly agreement can have its legislature cancel its involvement in this charade.
I don't think so, as far as I can tell, States can pretty much determine their electors any way they want to.
‘A state can’t dictate how a federal election should be decided.’
a state signing onto this compact dictates only the votes of its own electors...exactly as is done now, per the Constitution granting the individual states the right to vote for the top federal office...and remember FL in 2000? the election hinged on the vote of one state; it happens...