Replies

I think this opinion helps his project of circumventing the amendment process and abolishing the electoral college through the “national popular vote compact.” Faithless electors would essentially render the NPV compact unenforceable.

THIS. But we don't know if such compacts are legal and should they be legal?

The Left has been playing both sides of the argument so either they can try to convince faithless electors to vote against the Republican who won or they can rubber stamp changes in state law so no elector can defend the votes of the state population by going against the "national popular vote."

The Left knows they can fool a lot more people with the "national popular vote" argument because they control what passes for education.

Eventually they win. Look at CA, by total numbers in SF & LA they overwhelmed the voices, views and values of rural areas and the Orange & San Diego counties. No matter how hard people in those areas tried to get fair representation or break away from the hard-Left population centers in the state, they were trapped and drowned and either died off or left CA like I did when the policies and total costs became too much. That state, like Illinois, NY & a few others are tyranny of the majority cases.

Now in CA, with their scam election system where the top two go to run off you mostly only have one party choice in the general election cycle. The phony sales pitch was to produce more moderate candidates out of the primaries. I admit I fell for the term limits scam and warn every freeper and conservative who say something about congressional term limits that you do not want to go down that rabbit hole.

THIS. But we don't know if such compacts are legal and should they be legal?

I've heard two arguments against their legality: (1) The compact requires the consent of Congress under the Compacts Clause; and (2) the NPV compact is unconstitutional on its face for various, usually vague reasons (the Guarantee Clause is most frequently cited).

I certainly agree that Congress's consent would be necessary under the Compacts Clause. But does anyone really view this as a serious obstacle? They just need to wait for the next Democrat Congressional majority.

As for the constitutionality, I think today's ruling as well as Bush v. Gore make clear that the Supreme Court takes a broad view of a state legislature's power under Article II to "direct" the "manner" in which its "state shall appoint" electors.

The stakes are large: In the last 30 years, the Democrats are 6 and 1 in national popular votes for President. I agree that Republicans might do better if they were actually contesting the national popular vote, but that works both ways: Democrats currently have no incentive to get out the vote and run up the score in deep blue states like California and New York.

Make no mistake. If NPV's proponents can get it passed by enough states to carry a majority of the electoral votes, the NPV compact is happening. The fight will be won or lost in state legislatures. Republicans have done very well in state legislatures over the last couple decades, but they need to keep winning, and they need to act when they do win. For example, if Republicans take control of a state house in a state that has enacted the NPV compact (which doesn't seem likely this year), repealing the NPV compact needs to be a high priority.