Minnesota Lawmakers Are Trying to Smuggle in Measure to Subvert Electoral College

"What am I missing? How could it possibly be constitutional for state officials to order a Presidential Elector to vote a particular way?"

Each state controls how it's electoral college votes.

The blue states are passing laws saying that their electoral college will vote however the majority of the country votes.

In other words, the votes from that state don't count, except for how they contribute to the nation's majority vote.

If more than 50% of the electoral votes are pledged this way, that's effectively the end of the electoral college.

At that point the US is no longer a republic. It is a democracy, something the founders avoided (for good reason).

The densely populated states will rule the rest of the country.

This scheme would guarantee massive voter fraud in all the Democrat-controlled big cities to run up the "national popular vote."

If Trump were still to have more popular votes, expect lots of "faithless electors" in states carried by the Democrats. There is no way that the backers of this scheme will allow it to benefit a Republican candidate.

Thing is, there is no national popular vote, not in an official government capacity anyway, would they use AP numbers? Does the compact account for nationwide recounts, how could it given some states would never pass it?

Would it be constitutional, Auh?

As for MN, I don’t think (at least I hope) that the GOP State Senate would pass an Omnibus elections bill (aka democrat voter fraud facilitation bill) championed by the rat state house.

In the first place, compacts between two states or among several states require congressional approval, so, to the extent that all of those state laws go into effect only when other states agree to them, it would violate the Constitution unless Congress signs off on it.

Setting that aside, I think that a state that holds a presidential election but then ignores the results and appoints presidential electors would be in contravention with various right-to-vote Supreme Court rulings. If Minnesota appointed electors based on a “national popular vote” (which, as Impy mentioned, is not actually an official number), then MN voters would go from controlling 100% of the state’s 10 EVs to being less than a 2% contributor to the state’s 10 EVs.

And if the Supreme Court permitted a state can appoint electors based on election results outside of the state, then it would open the door to a state appointing electors based on election results just in the six New England states, or just in Alabama, or just in Loving County, TX, thus completely disenfranchising all of the state’s voters. Given that one-man, one-vote would not allow Minnesota to appoint electors based solely on the vote in Strearns County, MN (or even for a single elector to be elected exclusively by the county’s voters, since less than 10% of the state’s population lives in that county) because it would disenfranchise voters in other parts of the state, then how could a state be allowed to disenfranchise *all* of its voters?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.