If this is constitutional, then why couldn’t the far left liberal states just agree to give their EC votes to the dem candidate no matter who wins the state or the popular vote?
If they really cared about voter intent then they would back awarding electors by congressional district results. Then each elector would cast their votes in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their assigned constituency.
Hogwash, and the author knows it. States such as California and New York which are so faithful in voting Democrat every four years get a lot of attention from candidates because that's also where the campaign money is.
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.
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.
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.
-PJ
Who is this dumbass?
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.
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.
One stupid opinion doesn’t make it right.
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.
A supposed conservative. We know she’s 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.