Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
SCOTUS has since narrowed that restriction (Virginia v. Tennessee) to only those interstate compacts which would increase state power while decreasing federal power --- But clearly that would be the case for a compact that would bypass the federal Constitution's required amendment process to change presidential elections from one of independent groups of electors from individual states to one of a nation popular vote.
Yes, Article II, Section 1 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...") does allow states to choose electors pretty much however they like. But the words "Each state," and not "States"/Every state"/Etc., shows they did not intent to allow interstate compacts to determine electors - even if the states agree - without the consent of Congress as required in the Compact Clause.
Why would a state would give up their electoral vote to the whim of the entire US population?
The reason for the electoral college is better representation - citizens in sparsely populated areas should not be governed by the decisions of densely populated urban groups.
While these state moves are constitutional, the outcome would be to change the US from a republic to a democracy.
The founders knew what they were doing and put the electoral college in place to prevent just that.
Just because great minds think alike doesnt mean their fingers move the at the same speed.
The candidate who wins the popular vote in a congressional district gets on Electoral vote, and the voter who wins the overall popular vote in the state gets one electoral vote.
This would put states such as California and New York more into play, as it would swing states such as Florida.
Wow, Townhall has really fallen.
That defeats the point of maintaining a republic. If you want milquetoast GOP candidates that get trounced in the general the by all then go that way.
Rachel and her ilk should be among the first of those against the wall.
Come to think of it, that’d be a great way to bait a Democrat.
“Are you against The Wall?”
“Of course.”
“Well, you ought to be.”
Seems that the very last casualty of the first Civil War may be the electoral college.
Our current system has each state’s Secretary of State heavily involved in the election process, and I believe, certifying the result. However, it is well known that these results can be challenged in court, and often for a long time.
So, on Election Day, even if the various unofficial tallies show a winner, state irregularities could yield uncertified vote totals in a significant number of states... a half dozen to a dozen, I’d say.
So, what happens... the electors cast their votes for the candidate who is probably president, but while the vote total is still unofficial?
The opportunities for third-world shenanigans boggle the mind.
Fortunately, I too believe that the ban on interstate compacts should hold and make this proposal unconstitutional. But, the legal system has degenerated in the sense of becoming politicized that you can never be certain of any outcome.
Yes, though I think the proponents presuppose they will be able to secure the consent of Congress.
-PJ
Who is this dumbass?
Yep.
You understand the problem!
And hillary clinton would be president.
So, take this article with a boatload of skepticism.
Despite this author’s contention that this is not a constitutional issue, there are real constitutional questions.
1. Since the electoral college is not abolished, the citizens of the state are still voting for electors. If the winning side has its elected electors denied and the losing electors sent to Washington, then those voters’ votes have been overturned. That hardly seems to be what the Founders intened: winners are losers and losers are winners.
2. The 14th amendment clarifies that electors cannot be arbitrarily assigned, but are intended to be assigned based on a RIGHT to vote of citizens:
***A14, S2 - But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,***
3. That means that A2, S2 means “after a vote of citizens has taken place in that state”.
***A2, S2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct***
Therefore, it cannot be an arbitrary decision and it must involve the state “thereof” that is in question.
4. The assignment of electors, therefore, must be based on the vote of citizens of THAT state “thereof”, and not on the votes of citizens of other states. This is their RIGHT.
5. A14, S2 says any effort by a legislature to subvert the right to vote results in their losing about half of their electoral votes in that election.
6. Finally, What about recounts? What about majority versus plurality? Imagine a Ross Perot and no candidate achieves a majority. So, if a national candidate is not really preferred by a majority of Americans, why should my right to vote be refused and my electors be denied to my candidate in a 3, 4, or 5 way contest?
The constitution doesn’t begin to address a national recount, so that must not have been the intent.
Yes, though I think the proponents presuppose they will be able to secure the consent of Congress.
It wouldnt surprise me if a quarter of the Republicans voted for it. Theyre just stupid or evil enough to do it.
L
How quickly people forget how the “resistance” tried to get electors to change their votes after the 2016 election. Back then, the electoral college was a good thing.
Two points: First: Yes, writing this as a 'compact' makes enforcement of it unconstitutional unless Congress has agreed to it. As "democracy" sweeps the land, it is by no means uncertain that Congress will refuse.
Second: Without the 'compact' feature, State Legislatures are perfectly free to assign their EVs however they choose.
One stupid opinion doesn’t make it right.
Lets look at what would REALLY happen if this were in effect, using 2016: the votes comes down as it actually did. No problem, Hillary is elected. But if Trump had won the popular vote narrowly, the next day a lawsuit gets filed in federal court in San Francisco claiming the compact is unconstitutional because it wasnt approved by Congress. The judge promptly ruled in favor. The California legislature goes into session and exercises their constitutional authority to allocate the electors as they see fit and, presto change-o, Hillary is elected. I mean really, does anyone really think this wouldnt happen?
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.