Posted on 04/01/2019 9:50:19 PM PDT by entropy12
COLUMBUS, Ohio—A proposed Ohio constitutional amendment to award the state’s presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote has cleared an initial hurdle toward making the statewide ballot this November.
A summary of the proposed amendment was certified by Attorney General Dave Yost on Monday as a “fair and truthful statement of the proposed law,” though Yost didn’t weigh in on whether he supported or opposed the measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
The constitution is convoluted on this.
This subject is ripe for the Supreme Court.
I think they would find that this idea is “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” as is the current practice of awarding electoral votes in “winner takes all” states.
In both cases “the people” are being disenfranchised of their votes.
"No state shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state."
There is no agreement with other states required for this.
Constitutional.
And stupid.
A clumsy attempt for a state to invalidate a provision of the US Constitution. I actually hope they pass it. This will get slapped down in the USSC so fast it’ll set a new record.
In both cases “the people” are being disenfranchised of their votes..
The US Constitution never gave "the people" (individually) a right to vote for President.
If there is anything that will cause the country to split up it will be the abolition of the electoral college!
Flyover country will not tolerate being exclusively governed by California, New York State & the urban centers!
I agree. This is a stupid idea.
That’s how we should argue it.
Not only close but spot on. More than one section of the constitution too.
Why?
The proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution doesn't reference a compact or agreement between the states. Although other states have passed similar laws, lots of states pass similar laws on a variety of subject matter, but that doesn't mean that the states have entered into a compact or an agreement.
Thus far, it is only "blue states" that have signed up. Ohio would be the first "purple" state. With basically only "Dem states" signing up, there are only 2 possible outcomes: The Dem candidate wins the election by the usual methodology and margins... or the GOP candidate wins the election and the compact suddenly makes it a massive EV margin, if they get the popular vote total as well.
Imagine the Liberal heads popping next year if Trump wins "the normal way", but also happens to get the national total as well... giving him something close to a 450-88 EV win. They might seek to invalidate this silly NPV compact so that Trump doesn't get to brag about a "yuge" win, but he still remains in office anyway.
There is literally no downside for the GOP until more red and purple states sign on. At the moment, there are none... but Ohio is the first potential.
No need to collude with Russians in order to overthrow an election.
Because the US Constitution alows the States to appoint Electors, “...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...”
In the long run, this probably doesn’t matter much.
Within a relatively short time the problems evident in this country, or what’s left it pre-globalist takeover, are going to have to be solved by guns not votes.
People on "our side" need to pay close attention to this trend. As bad of an idea as it is for our republic, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has compiled a brief summary of state laws about the various procedures, which vary from state to state, for selecting slates of potential electors and for conducting the meeting of the electors. The document, Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors, can be downloaded from the resources/elections menu on the NASS website.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
Why even vote in Ohio then? Ohio could go 100% for a candidate and have all their electoral votes go to another candidate.
“Ohio has already introduced legislation last year to form such a compact. They are working in that direction.”
I agree that the proposed legislation to which you cite is probably unconstitutional under the “compacts clause” in Article I, §10 of the U.S. Constitution, but that legislation is going no where and not the subject of this thread. The issue her is an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that does not reference or otherwise affirm the compact between the states.
"What is the Electoral College?
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
....
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote."
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has compiled a brief summary of state laws about the various procedures, which vary from state to state, for selecting slates of potential electors and for conducting the meeting of the electors. The document, Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors, can be downloaded from the resources/elections menu on the NASS website.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
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.