Replies

The federal Voting Rights lawsuit needs to be to disqualify all of these states’ electoral votes from being counted in the total.

I think this National Popular Vote initiative is a very bad idea for all the reasons listed. I also think it will be ignored by the 'blue' states the minute a Republican gets a majority of the national popular vote.

However, it does not take a Constitutional amendment to do this. The Constitution establishes that the states get to decide how to apportion their electors, and if they choose to do so on the basis of how other states voted rather than on how their own citizens voted, then they have that authority.

Declaring it to be unConstitutional dilutes the strong arguments on how it will swing all the power in electing Presidents to the big, populous states and smaller states will lose all voice (and candidate interest). I have seen too many threads that get wrapped up in the Constitutionality argument instead of the real issue.

However, it's also a non issue. The deep blue states will go for it, but their electoral votes were always going for the collectivist candidate anyway. The 'swing' states have not been lining up for this, and if the collectivists had control of the additional 75 electoral votes needed to get this measure approved, they wouldn't need it in the first place.

A parallel to this, the individual States had a similar policy with respect to counties versus big cities. Not certain how it worked, but it must have been a good plan.

The idea was, to balance the power between less populated rural areas/counties and large population cities.

SCOTUS said that was unconstitutuonal. Because naturally.

However, it does not take a Constitutional amendment to do this. The Constitution establishes that the states get to decide how to apportion their electors, and if they choose to do so on the basis of how other states voted rather than on how their own citizens voted, then they have that authority.

They have the authority if they unilaterally do it on a state by state basis.

Where they run into Constitutional trouble is when they link it to a compact of other states doing the same, and not making it effective until enough states join. By doing this, it is no longer one state choosing its own method of allocating Electoral College votes. It becomes the last state to join's choice, because that state chooses when to "turn it on," not the other states.

If a state can't decide for itself when to start allocating their Electoral College votes, then it's really not "choosing" per the Constitutional power, it's deferring. I don't think that deferring to choose is a choice in and of itself, as is expected per the Constitutional power delegated to the states.

-PJ

“The Constitution establishes that the states get to decide how to apportion their electors, and if they choose to do so on the basis of how other states voted rather than on how their own citizens voted, then they have that authority.”

I disagree with this statement and so do many others. I’m not going to bother with details but In short states have LATITUDE, but NOT free reign in this matter. Furthermore, aside from how the states are permitted to portion their electoral votes, this compact between states is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.