That sounds unconstitutional; they are disenfranchising their own voters.
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Yep. You said it more concisely than I did.
I can’t see how it is - they’re basically saying they have the right to change the system and disenfranchise voters. We have a system that rules all, they can’t just decide for themselves that they’ll do something else.
This is very dangerous. They want to tip the scales to Democrats in a manner that will be permanent. They’re openly rigging the system. Obama’s legacy; weaponize the government and allow lawlessness so that D’s will always win. Evil.
“That sounds unconstitutional; they are disenfranchising their own voters”
The Constitution says nothing about Presidential elections. Popular voting is not part of the Constitutional process for choosing a President, any state could dispense with voters participating in the choice of Electors tomorrow, and that would be perfectly Constitutional.
in federal elections, MY vote is as important as anybody’s in Conn....this illegal action takes away my vote in favor of group think...
To my thinking, it's totally constitutional IF the state chooses to allocate its EV unilaterally. If it makes it contingent on a bloc of other states totaling 270 EV before this takes effect, then it becomes an interstate compact requiring Congressional approval.
I've repeatedly called for willing states to step up and be leaders for the popular vote movement to just do it... that is, pass a law making their allocation based on the popular vote winner effective immediately and call for other states to do the same. I don't expect other states to follow suit once the blowback of the first state occurs.
It's easy for any single legislature to pass a vote that has no impact NOW, and then claim it wasn't them if this should ever come to pass.
It's better to call them out as hypocrites now but not having the courage to act alone.
-PJ
Because it is unConstitutional and they ARE disenfranchising their own voters. No way this stands up in court, at least at the USSC. All bets are off at the local, appellate, Federal and District courts.