Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia House passes bill to award electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote
The Hill ^ | 02 12 2020 | Aris Folley

Posted on 02/12/2020 10:41:58 AM PST by yesthatjallen

The Democratic-led Virginia House of Delegates has passed legislation that seeks to award the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the national popular vote in an election.

The measure, also known as House Bill 177, passed the legislative chamber in a 51-46 vote on Tuesday after clearing the body’s Privileges and Elections Committee in a vote last week.

If the legislation is passed by the Senate, where Democrats also hold control, and signed into law by the governor, Virginia would subsequently be entered into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” a bill summary states. “The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact.”

SNIP

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: electoralcollege; faithlesselectors; nationalpopularvote; npv; popularvote; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: Sam Gamgee

The constitution sets out that the state gets so many electoral votes proportional to its population and that the people vote for those electors.

The state can determine how those electoral votes are allocated pursuant to the voting of its populace. Either winner take all or, more recently, proportional electors based on, again, the populace’ vote. (I’m not sure if the proportional vote has been tried in court yet) Either way the electors are still directly picked by the populace - NOT the state government.

Here, the state is shirking it’s representation by giving its electoral votes to, potentially, a state with a denser population. This effectively throws away the votes of its populace and also violates the point of the electoral college to begin with - that is, balance the voting strength of the states vs their respective populations.


121 posted on 02/12/2020 3:10:38 PM PST by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"Yes it does"

[cites equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment]

No it doesn't.

"My vote is not equal to someone else's vote if they live in New York or California and this "popular vote" act is used."

That's already true. Electors aren't apportioned strictly by population. People in small states have a disproportionally larger influence in the Electoral College because each state gets the same number of electors that they have House Representatives and Senators. See: When it comes to voting, not all states are created equal.

This is by design. The states elect the President, not the People. And the power of each state was set equal to the state's representation in Congress.

If the 14th Amendment invalidated unequal say in presidential elections then the entire electoral system would have been invalidated. It doesn't do that.

The Constitution specifically lays out the procedure for electing a President, and it gives that power to each state legislature to do as they like. You have no right to vote for President. You legislature has chosen to use its power to hold an honor the results of an election. They don't have to do it that way. If a state legislature instead wanted to simply pass a resolution to designate electors, they could. If they want to assign electors depending on the outcome of the popular vote, or whether it rained that day, they could.

122 posted on 02/12/2020 3:29:31 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

Thanks for explaining that. I was under some incorrect notions.


123 posted on 02/12/2020 3:55:47 PM PST by Sam Gamgee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: mlo

You posted an interesting article about the disparity between electoral college vote strength as it applies to the five smallest population states. In general, however, electoral college representation remains relatively even for everyone else. I was not aware that these small population states received one more elector than they had representation in the Congress because the minimum is three. This is still preferable to having New York and California decide who our President is every election.


124 posted on 02/12/2020 4:33:38 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen
“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” a bill summary states.

Something which does not actually exist and is not certified.

What is actually occurring is that they are voting to take away their own citizens right to vote for President and have their Electors chosen not by their own voters, but by voters in other states...unfortunately I do not see this being the message against Dem controlled legislatures that have done this in other states.

125 posted on 02/12/2020 5:57:22 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

Speaking of which - I would actually change the 3 electoral votes that DC has alone and make those three votes collectively be for all non-state US territories combined.


126 posted on 02/12/2020 6:00:08 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

bfl


127 posted on 02/12/2020 7:37:16 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 10mm
States routinely do not count absentee, military, or provisional ballots if there are not enough to make up the difference in the vote total for that state.

Never thought about that. Great point.
128 posted on 02/12/2020 8:43:03 PM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee
Okay trying to understand this legislation. If Trump wins the popular vote in Virginia, say 55% to 45%; but Pete wins the popular vote in all other 49 states combined (the national vote ex Virginia), then Virginia’s votes go to Pete?

Yes. You understand it. What they're TRYING to do is form a compact with other states totaling at least 270 electoral votes. If they are able to sign on enough states to adopt the same policy (i.e. get 270 electorals pledged to the popular vote winner), the electoral college is basically nullified.

While I originally felt that this was constitutional and couldn't be stopped, others on this thread have presented great arguments as to why this is unconstitutional.
129 posted on 02/13/2020 7:12:37 AM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The Constitution specifically lays out the procedure for electing a President, and it gives that power to each state legislature to do as they like. You have no right to vote for President. You legislature has chosen to use its power to hold an honor the results of an election. They don't have to do it that way. If a state legislature instead wanted to simply pass a resolution to designate electors, they could. If they want to assign electors depending on the outcome of the popular vote, or whether it rained that day, they could.

Ok. If they want to pass a law saying that if the corn grows taller on the eastern part of the state, their EV go to the democrat. If it grows taller in the West, they go to the republican. I'm in agreement there. Everything is done "intra-state".

But if they enter into an arrangement to do what OTHER states do, or in this case, the votes reported by the other 49 states, doesn't that then become an "interstate compact" needing to be ratified by the congress?

I feel like that could go either way, but the way SCOTUS so liberally defines "interstate commerce" giving the feds the power to basically regulate about anything (if a farmer grows and too much wheat to feed his animals, he's affecting interstate commerce - Wickard v. Filburn), I would think they'd also lean to the side of the "interstate compact" interpretation in this case as well, no?
130 posted on 02/13/2020 7:36:29 AM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"States can award their EV to whomever they want. Its constitutional."

Not really. This law flies in the face of what the electoral college system was designed to do and that is to prevent the heavier populated states MORE power with their VOTES than the smaller populated states. This law, if allowed, makes small state citizens votes less equal to large states citizens votes and right away is an infringement of the equal citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is only one aspect, as there as countless others such as denying the voters in a state to cast the ballots that THEY want to cast, in essence, taking away their right to vote.

In short, this is slam dunk unconstitutional.


Not at all, this is either gonna be an interesting fight, or easily Constitutional. The States select their electors as their Legislature directs. If they want to save money, skip the election, and pass a law saying that the first guy by alphabetical last name gets all the electoral votes, that's perfectly Constitutional. The only issue here, like some other posters have mentioned, is this being an inter-state compact, which is forbidden. If they chose to do this, each State on their own, that'd be fine. But making it part of a group effort is the only thing that could stop this, Constitutionally speaking.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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.
.
.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

131 posted on 02/13/2020 7:31:12 PM PST by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
Article Four, Section Four..

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Bypassing the will of the voters in your state is denying them the guaranteed Republican form of government whereby one elects someone else to represent their wishes. If you want to argue that the Constitution says that the states themselves elect the President and Vice President, then that argument loses standing after over 200 years of precedent showing that this has been given to the citizens to decide. The USSC would weigh in on the side of the citizens as they really would have no choice.

132 posted on 02/13/2020 7:52:42 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; bgill; ...

p


133 posted on 02/14/2020 9:14:46 AM PST by bitt (We, the people, are who they fear will one day awake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Steve Van Doorn
"States can award their EV to whomever they want. Its constitutional."

That's correct.

 

"What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.

Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

....

Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote."

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

 

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.1 Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has compiled a brief summary of state laws about the various procedures, which vary from state to state, for selecting slates of potential electors and for conducting the meeting of the electors. The document, Summary: State Laws Regarding Presidential Electors, can be downloaded from the resources/elections menu on the NASS website.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

[1] Since there is no law and no Constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the candidate that wins the most votes within that state's election results, the electors within the state can be directed by state law to vote for the national populare vote winner (for example).

134 posted on 02/14/2020 9:34:24 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
"The only issue here, like some other posters have mentioned, is this being an inter-state compact, which is forbidden. If they chose to do this, each State on their own, that'd be fine. But making it part of a group effort is the only thing that could stop this, Constitutionally speaking."

Correct.

135 posted on 02/14/2020 9:40:54 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

interesting
Thanks


136 posted on 02/14/2020 9:57:23 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: mmichaels1970

I think you pretty much nailed it...
***
Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
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.
***

Maine & Nebraska apportion by Congressional District...


137 posted on 02/14/2020 10:20:25 AM PST by stylin19a ((2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states"

Yes there is. It's Article Four, Section Four of the U.S. Constitution.

"The United States shall guarantee to every

State

in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

A Republican form of government is one where the people select representatives to "represent" their opinions at the big table of government. The Constitution GUARANTEES this type of government to the STATE. Not representing the wishes of the people you represent breaks this guarantee. The wording of this guarantee also appears to mean that this guarantee is to the individual STATE, not states or group of states, thus implying that representation is limited to a state by state basis.

138 posted on 02/14/2020 12:07:31 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
If the people of Virginia voted in this government, and their new government wants their electors to vote a certain way (so long as they don't engage in a pact with other states), they are FREE TO DO SO.
THEY ELETED THEIR OWN GOV'T TO REPRESENT THEM.

Still a Republican form of government, even if conservatives don't like the outcome of the previous election.

As long as they don't form a pact w/another state, this is completely constitutional even if we wish it wasn't because there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent THEIR Republican form of state government from directing their electors to vote a certain way.

139 posted on 02/14/2020 1:31:08 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"As long as they don't form a pact w/another state, this is completely constitutional even if we wish it wasn't because there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent THEIR Republican form of state government from directing their electors to vote a certain way."

This can only be argued if the citizens of Virginia are NOT allowed to vote in a Presidential election. If they are allowed to vote then your argument is not correct. Is Virginia planning on not allowing their citizens to vote in the election this year?

140 posted on 02/14/2020 1:37:49 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson