More States Consider Working Around the Electoral College

abcnews ^ | Dec 23, 2016, | susan haigh, associated press

[mdittmar]

Frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote, mostly Democratic lawmakers in several capitols want their states to join a 10-year-old movement to work around the Electoral College.

In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.

"Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system," said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[kabar]

How many more electors would Bush have had with those 3,000 ballots?

Non-sequitur. It had nothing to do with whether they would have impacted the outcome of election or not. They would have been counted if the state deemed that they were legal votes.

[a fool in paradise]

It is the reason that all votes are not counted in every certified total. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE OUTCOME. Buh bye.

[kabar]

It is the reason that all votes are not counted in every certified total.

All valid votes are counted. Whether they affect the outcome of the election or not is irrelevant. Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.

[CivilWarBrewing]

The President Trump DOJ’s arrest of George Soros should slow these radical leftist attacks on our Constitution down DRAMATICALLY.

[TMA62]

“Every vote in this country should have equal weight.....”

________________________________________________________

Using that logic, the US Senate should be abolished and the House of Reps should be the only one in the legislative branch.

In the Senate, all States are equally represented regardless of size or population. Idaho, one of the least populated states, has the same number of votes as California. I can hear the left whining about that, “That’s not fair. Why should Idaho have the same number of votes as CA or NY?” For the same reason why The Electoral College was established. To acknowledge all the states and not just the populated ones. It was set up so that the large cities in the early US (NYC, Philly, Boston) did not have a controlling influence on the rural states.

For those whining about Hillary winning the popular vote, I remind them that that happens in the Senate on a regular basis. Many Bills or Amendments to Bills are voted down where the senators on the losing end represent the most populated states. Hence the majority of people in the country may be in the loosing end in the Senate. Again, this was and is the purpose of the US Senate, to represent the states. The House represents the populations within the states. In fact, it can be argued that the US Senate is even more ‘unfair’ than the Electoral Collage. This argument typically shuts up the anti-electoral college crowd.

[headstamp 2]

[In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state’s Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.]

How the hell is this even constitutional?

I’d rather have proportionals.

[Almondjoy]

Of course it’s treason, any state and I don’t care if it’s California or Texas decides to part ways then the US Military better bring full bare, because those citizens aren’t any better than ISIS as far as I’m concerned. Just because you don’t like what’s going on doesn’t mean you get to leave.

[ought-six]

Yes, there is that.

[Impy]

This is DOA in any state that’s not democrat controlled so it’s not of any more concern for now than it was when they first cooked it up a few years ago. It’s going no where in PA or Ohio or NM where it would be vetoed if rats pass it. Of states mentioned CT might pass it, big deal.

I’ll grant that it’s clever but a good question is, is this scheme even constitutional? Cause there is no such thing as a national popular vote. Different states have different voting and counting standards, is there an even a central authority outside of media outlets that even calculates popular votes? Wouldn’t this violate equal protection or something?

[GOPsterinMA]

“Wouldn’t this violate equal protection or something?”

One would think so.

It’s so predictable: Liberals lose and the first thing they want to do is to change the rules.

[Terry Mross]

The idiot says every vote should have equal weight. Yet he’s willing to allow California’s votes out weigh Pennsylvania’s votes. They really are stupid.

[Republican Wildcat]

I’m referring to the compact they are trying to pass - the subject of the article we were commenting on - this scam has been going on for years - this not stand alone legislation as you seem to think it is - it is a compact of states trying to get this passed in order to go into effect - only going into effect if a certain number of other states join the compact. The Constitution is quite clear in not allowing states to enter into a compact without the consent of Congress. If they want to pass a rule for their own Elector allocation all on their own, you’re right, they can do that, but that’s not what is occurring here.

And there is no certified “national popular vote” as I stated which could create additional issues...saying it is “just math” doesn’t solve that issue since those elections are completely separate by state with different standards. I am aware the legislature can appoint its own Electors directly but that is beside the point...that is not what they are proposing.

[discostu]

It’s not a compact, it’s a conditional law. They aren’t meeting and agreeing on anything. They’re declaring that if enough other do X then this clause is triggered.

And there doesn’t need to be a certification of the national election. It IS just math. And legislatures can appoint electors HOWEVER THEY WANT. That’s the Constitution. Including the national vote numbers.

This would be 100% constitutional. It would also be 100% stupid. But there are ZERO valid constitutional arguments against it.

[Republican Wildcat]

It’s not a compact, it’s a conditional law. They aren’t meeting and agreeing on anything. They’re declaring that if enough other do X then this clause is triggered.

Your point is well taken, but that is dancing around on the head of the pin...but probably enough for a court to declare it a "political question" and not rule on it.

And there doesn’t need to be a certification of the national election. It IS just math. And legislatures can appoint electors HOWEVER THEY WANT. That’s the Constitution. Including the national vote numbers.

One again, there is no national popular vote - it would not just be "math" - there would have to be some sort of verification for the state to use it under a law allocating Electors to certify it. There is no official tabulation. I suppose they could say "as tabulated by the AP in their final count" or something but that would be rather awkward. It would also be 100% stupid.

Yes.

[discostu]

There doesn’t have to be an official national vote. Since they can pick EC voters based on ANY criteria they can just say that it’s the generally accepted winner of the popular vote. There doesn’t need to be any verification or official tabulation. They could literally just say whoever CNN says is the winner is the winner and our EC voters will vote for that person. They can pull a name out of a hat if they want. There are no limits and no need for official anything.