Posted on 04/27/2018 4:30:42 PM PDT by lowbridge
If enacted though this would completely eliminate the winner being based on the electoral vote process. Because with 270 electoral votes it means that the law of the land would then be that the winner is by popular vote. This completely negates the constitutions intentions. It seems like a form of collusion between the states involved in order to subvert the constitution. In that way it is kind of a bit like Rico.
So they want majority rules when it would give the Democrat the win and electoral college rules when that way would give the Democrat the win.
If Election Day is on November 6th (for example) and the Electoral College doesn't meet until mid-December, then any state that joins this "compact" has more than a month for their legislature to pass a statute that withdraws the state from the agreement.
Since none of this is binding under Federal law, no state has the power to enforce such an agreement with any other state.
In other words, it's all just theatrics ... carried out by state legislators who are so useless they have to make up sh!t like this to fill their days.
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.
To me, this means that each state must determine the method of appointing the electors independently from the other states and voters.
This would make Connecticut electors completely dependent on the actions of the legislators and voters in other states.
Or did I miss something.....
‘I also don’t think that awarding electors based on the voting in other states meets the guarantee of republican government to the states.’
as has been stated before, the states are granted the right to choose the electors for the presidency as each state sees fit...this doesn’t circumvent that...
> Wouldn’t they be, in fact, ripping off the voters in their own State..?? <
The Constitution gives the states great freedom on how they can award their electoral votes. But yeah, you’re right. Voters in a state might go, say, 60 % for candidate A. And yet 100% of the state’s electoral votes could be given to candidate B.
It’s so obviously unfair that only a liberal would think of it.
’ I don’t think that would go over too good...’
except the voters would have voted for the state legislators who okayed the proposition; they can blame themselves...
Yes it will and yes it can.
A GOP candidate can win CT. Trump should have campaigned more heavily in CT, especially in places like Litchfield County and Fairfield County.
A GOP candidate CAN win CT at the right circumstances!!!
Yes, a GOPer can win CT!!!
Yup.
If a Republican happened to win the popular vote and let’s say Blue States had to give the EV to the popular winner under the compact, they could withdraw from it before the Electoral College met.
Its political theatrics and meaningless. Democrats have no intention of ever legitimating a Republican victor. Any one who thinks they’re trying to protect democracy are living in a dream world.
This “compact” is valid for Democrats only. That’s why they can pass it in the knowledge they can undo it if it ever led to the opposite result.
That’s why its a liberal political con job.
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.
More follows in the Article detailing specifics if you care to read it.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii
The state has the right to do that. And we will end up with 2000 every four years.
It’s a good thing the founding fathers were morons. //sarc
So...the will of Connecticut voters can be countermanded and their Electoral College votes go to whoever won the most votes (however those are determined) across the country?
The age old problem with direct participatory democracy is that it gives birth to Democrats who then manipulate it into
the tyranny of a makeshift majority.
The way things are going, America will fall apart as the former Soviet Union did if we are lucky. The worst case is a civil war. America as founded is no more.
If the Dems can’t win it they’ll rig it
States can choose to award their electors in any fashion they see fit. The idiocy of this plan is to make their own state’s majority meaningless. The small state of Connecticut is going to have its electors subject to larger states voters.
Dumb.
So they are going to ignore the will and votes of their own citizens?
I think red states need to change their laws: The Democrat must win by 100% to receive any electoral votes.
Excerpted from 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; …"
Corrections, insights welcome.
As others have pointed out, it is within the power of the state governments to do this. It will be fun to watch the bodies bounce if they do and the inevitable happens.
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.