Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not quite. The Electors must cast their votes based on the election in their state, not elections in other states.
It is important to understand that the very independence of the Electors gives them the authority to refuse to allow their vote to be cast for a candidate who failed in their state. This “pact” denies the right of the Elector to cast their vote as they see fit and makes them rubber stamps of whichever candidate dominates in big cities.
This compact means candidates will be spending 90% of their campaign time in Los Angeles and NYC. This is precisely the problem the EC was created to overcome.
“Democracy” is killing this nation, we shouldn’t be advocating for more of it.”
I predict that a majority of readers will not grasp the truth of what you are saying. Most still think that this nation was formed as a democracy and that democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality true democracy is guaranteed misery. The decision to drop the voting age to eighteen illustrated the problem and now some kooks want to lower it to sixteen. Just imagine what triumphs we could enjoy with teenyboppers voting to elect Mouseketeers to congress.
The single biggest Constitutional violation is Article IV Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I can't imagine any state scheme that bypasses the votes of its own people as being a "republican form of government." People in these states will be represented by people in other states, not their own.
Under the Constitution, states are free to award their electors in any way they see fit. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution either mentioning or mandating the current winner-take-all system by which most states award their electoral votes. The Founding Fathers never approved it. By entering the compact, the states agree to direct their Electoral College votes through a popular vote.
If we're going to go back to the times of the Framers, then we have to acknowledge that communications were poor, limited by the speed of horses, and that news from the north took weeks to reach the south. Why would the Framers have contemplated a method of choosing Electors to the Electoral College that required waiting weeks or months for all of the states to canvass all of their regions, and then have all of them report their totals to all of the others?
No, it was exactly because of this remoteness of states from other states that the Electoral College was formed. States chose Electors who were otherwise unaffiliated people in their states who would travel . Note that Article II Section 1 Clause 2 states:
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.
Right there, we see a Constitutional restriction on how a state can award Electors.
States cannot compact together to deny other states their Constitutional powers. These compacting states are taking away the right of the states to expect a republican form of government, where the people in each state are represented within their state to chose their own Electors to the Electoral College. It is on these grounds that the National Popular Vote Compact is unconstitutional.
-PJ
It appears a State can change it’s position any time the leadership changes Parties.
If a lib State votes for a Dem and and a Rep wins the pop vote the awarding of EC votes to the “enemy” would likely piss off a lot of Dems in the State and cause poblems for them in a coming election.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution says that the states will make their own laws where it is not prohibited.
Taking away states rights is not the smartest thing to do by people who are supposed to be the smartest people in
the world especially since the fed government was only granted limeted powers by no the states to begin with.
Why keep going over it? ...because you’re wrong. This is unconstitutional on multiple levels, just an end-around the EC system and is completely out of line with the founders intent. States don’t get to decide how the national election works. It’d only take a single State to have widespread fraud (CA!) and be able to determine a national election.
This also negates the will of the people in States that voted differently than the popular vote.
How about this. Electoral votes are awarded by congressional district with the winner of the popular vote in each district getting that vote. Then the other two EVs per state go to the over all winner of the popular vote in that state.
As an example, let’s use Indiana. We have I believe nine reps at this time plus two senators. 6-7 of those districts go reliably republican so those six or seven EV’s go to the republican candidate, the others go to the democrat, but the state as a whole goes republican so those 2 EV’s go to the republican also. So of Indiana’s 11 EV’s 8/9 go republican, 2/3 go democrat.
If the democrats are really interested in one man/one vote this is the plan. With this plan people outside the big cities in NY, CA, IL etc. will have their votes count which doesn’t happen now, plus it would make it worth your while to campaign in at least every state, if not every district, because every EV would be up for grabs. My guess is they won’t be too interested.
And non-citizens are not allowed to vote!
A supposed conservative. We know shes not when she describes amending the constitution as long and cumbersome
Using the popular vote only to assign the EC votes is redundant, and would assure tyranny of the cities over all smaller towns and farm villages.
I have thought about this a lot over the past 20 years or so. My concept would allow the 2 votes which represent the Senate assignment per each state would vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote for President; the remaining votes from that state would be assigned to the popular vote for President in each Congressional District in that state.
In Minnesota, my vote for President has only been tallied in the EC once - in 1972 when Nixon vs McGovern resulted in MN going GOP. Using my plan, the Dems would have gotten a minimum of 2 votes in every election since 1972 in Minnesota, but the GOP would have always gotten a few votes from the more conservative districts.
I doubt the Democrats would ever approve such a more sensible solution, since the GOP controls more real estate and often more of the rural districts.
It is claimed that they want each vote to count. If that were true, electors would be handed out via congressional district. That would really make your vote count!
I suspect where this whole thing hits a roadblock is due to the fact that many of the states (if not all of them) have little or no ballot integrity measures in place:
Can’t look at citizenship
Can’t remove dead voters
No voter ID
Ballots mailed to voters not requesting them
(and now) Vote harvesting
This national compact would institutionalize, enshrine, and reward all of those things, and probably a few I’ve not thought of yet.
The courts may step in, for this reason.
Oh, and hurry up RBG.
I live in California and I see what the popular vote does. Republicans here have no voice in anything.
I support the EC but I don’t support the winner-takes-all approach. If a candidate wins 51% of the vote in a state, they shouldn’t get 100% of the EC’s, they should get 51% of the EC’s in that state.
I live in California, and I would be more compelled to vote if this were the case. Because even if my candidate only won 35% of the EC’s, at least I’d know I contributed to that. I think it would represent people more accurately and encourage more people to be part of the election process while at the same time avoiding the mob rule and protecting the sanctity of the constitution.
That quote is mind-numbingly stupid.
To her way of thinking, your vote only counts if you win?
How can this country have a "national popular vote" when election and ballot standards are subject to individual state laws?
This moron acts like there was no such thing as a "swing state" before 1990.
I don’t believe state legislatures have a “blank check” at all. The first time a candidate wins a state and yet loses that state’s electoral votes, you can be damn sure that every racial/ethnic minority voter in that state who voted for that candidate will have a solid civil rights case over their disenfranchisement.
Posted: Apr 01, 2019 12:01 AM
This is unconstitutional on multiple levels...
Name one, with the pertainent portions of the Constitution.
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.