“I’m not sure I follow this.
Would this law make it theoretically possible for 100% of the state of Massachusetts to have voted for candidate x, but the state’s delegates be awarded to candidate y because 51% of the nation did?”
Yes, it would. Do you “follow it” now?
I know that the Constitution permits states to select electors for the Electoral College as they choose.
But - in cases where a majority in a given state clearly votes for candidate A, and the “law” in that states says that electors must vote for candidate B because he/she won a majority of votes in _other states_ - I believe such a law could be challenged in federal (and eventually the U.S. Supreme) court on the basis that it negates _another_ state obligation under the Constitution: that citizens of the states be guaranteed a “representative” form of government.
I’m just a dumb neanderthal, but seems to me that ANY law within a state which mandates that the votes of a majority of its citizens be negated would be in direct violation of the Constitution due to the “representative form of government” clause.
- John
Thanks, got it.
That’s insane.
The state legislatures and the governor decide how to allocate the electoral votes, so it is representative. Four states have already signed on to this compact and four more states, including CA, have had both houses sign off on it.
National Popular Vote They seem to believe it will pass constitutional muster. It is really an end run around the Constitution to implement the direct election of the President by popular vote. It will undermine even futher federalism and marginalize the smaller states.