When you say “Congress” must ratify the arrangement you mean both houses, right?
By 1844, only South Carolina still had the legislature appointing presidential electors, and that ended in 1868 when a carpetbagger legislature brought South Carolina into harmony with the rest of the nation.
In the contested election of 1876, southern states under military occupation saw the people voting for Democratic electors. Charging fraud, the carpetbagger legislature appointed its own slate of Republican electors. Going completely outside the Constitution, Congress appointed a board of 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats to decide which slate of electors to accept for the congressional tally of electoral votes. In each case, the vote was 4 to 3 to accept the Republican slates. And so Rutherford Hayes of Ohio defeated Samuel Tilden of New York.
In 1877 the dispute made its way to the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that the state legislature had an undisputed right to appoint electors. A state legislature could even refuse to hold a popular election for electors and appoint its own slate.
In 2000, the Florida Legislature appointed a Republican slate of electors in case the dispute over the election ran past the Safe Harbor Date established by federal law in 1887. The Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore eliminated the need to appoint that slate.
The initiative in question would require a state’s legislature to hand its duty of appointing electors to the winner of the national popular vote, not the winner of the state’s popular vote, nor the winner of the popular vote of any of its congressional districts. As long as a state’s legislature makes that decision, it’s legal for that state.
Because this would be an interstate pact, it would require congressional approval from both Houses. If that happens, it’s legal and ready to go into effect.
The larger issue is the Guarantee Clause of Article IV. Is it “a republican form of government” for a state to ignore the votes of its own citizens to appoint a slate of electors that reflects the national popular will? That will end up in the Supreme Court.
When you say “Congress” must ratify the arrangement you mean both houses, right?
*********
If this is true, then the President can veto it.
Unfortunately, I believe states can decide how electoral votes are allocated, since most states do so now by declaring that the winner of the statewide vote receives all electoral votes. Some don’t.
In actuality a state can vote to flip a coin, draw a name out a a hat, or have a wrestling match to decide the winner of electoral votes.
It would be truer to the Founding Fathers’ intent, if electoral votes were allocated according to how the majority of voters in each House District vote. Then the state would allocate the number of electors per candidate according to that vote.
Large urban areas, where election fraud can easily occur, would no longer be able to sway an election.
Truly, the wishes of the voters in each Congressional District would be expressed in the selection of a President, not as it is currently done by the majority of voters statewide deciding that all electors to the Electoral Congress be Democrat, Republican, or Independent for that state.
Each House member represents approximately 733,103 people. This is true whether 700,000 people voted, or 1,000. This way people in other areas of the state cannot choose House Members for other districts. So it should be for members of the Electoral Congress.
Should a state be able to decide that the political party receiving the majority of votes statewide choose all House Members for a state? Of course not. Of course not, this would result in every state’s House Members being from the same party.
Each state’s two Senators, prior to the 17th Amendment, represented the wishes of the state legislature.
The 17th Amendment was a move toward true democracy, which was avoided by the Founding Fathers.
It brought about the “democratic choice” of Senators by the majority of the popular vote in a state. It was promoted as giving people more input into the Senate.
Unfortunately money gets in the way, and money interests from far outside a state helps elect Senators, and in doing so, influences Senator’s stands on issues.