Posted: 11/9/2016 11:46:54 PM EDT
|
Has anyone ever heard of this? Seems like a Dem power grab to me. Would it be constitutional and what are the chances it could happen within the next few election cycles? Lots of liberals pushing this idea on FB.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact |
|
Quoted:
Even if it was constitutional it would not affect this election, Michigan and PA its still pending legislation. Right. It doesn't take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. My question was about the likelihood of reaching the 270 needed and also the legality of it once/if that happens. |
|
Quoted:
Right. It doesn't take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. My question was about the likelihood of reaching the 270 needed and also the legality of it once/if that happens. Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if it was constitutional it would not affect this election, Michigan and PA its still pending legislation. Right. It doesn't take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. My question was about the likelihood of reaching the 270 needed and also the legality of it once/if that happens. States may choose any method they want to choose Electors, as long as it is prescribed by the legislature. Electors could be chosen by legislation, by lot, by direct election, by indirect election, by gubernatorial appointment, or other ,means. |
|
Quoted:
States may choose any method they want to choose Electors, as long as it is prescribed by the legislature. Electors could be chosen by legislation, by lot, by direct election, by indirect election, by gubernatorial appointment, or other ,means. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if it was constitutional it would not affect this election, Michigan and PA its still pending legislation. Right. It doesn't take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. My question was about the likelihood of reaching the 270 needed and also the legality of it once/if that happens. States may choose any method they want to choose Electors, as long as it is prescribed by the legislature. Electors could be chosen by legislation, by lot, by direct election, by indirect election, by gubernatorial appointment, or other ,means. It's completely unconstitutional because it's an attempt to thwart the Electoral College and that one is in the Constitution. It would also have to be approved by the Congress per Article I, Section 10: 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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Liberals want this because it means that only the cities would control the presidency. I'll start shooting before I let that happen. |
|
Quoted:
It's completely unconstitutional because it's an attempt to thwart the Electoral College and that one is in the Constitution. It would also have to be approved by the Congress per Article I, Section 10: 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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Liberals want this because it means that only the cities would control the presidency. I'll start shooting before I let that happen. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if it was constitutional it would not affect this election, Michigan and PA its still pending legislation. Right. It doesn't take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have signed on. My question was about the likelihood of reaching the 270 needed and also the legality of it once/if that happens. States may choose any method they want to choose Electors, as long as it is prescribed by the legislature. Electors could be chosen by legislation, by lot, by direct election, by indirect election, by gubernatorial appointment, or other ,means. It's completely unconstitutional because it's an attempt to thwart the Electoral College and that one is in the Constitution. It would also have to be approved by the Congress per Article I, Section 10: 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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Liberals want this because it means that only the cities would control the presidency. I'll start shooting before I let that happen. But it doesn't thwart the Electoral College, strictly speaking. It's States choosing electors a particular way, which is their prerogative under the Constitution. They are appointing slates of Electors based on what is treated as a national straw poll. Personally, I think that Electors should be picked by CD except for two, which should be chosen by legislation, with CDs being drawn according to geography rather than population. Governors should be Electors by virtue of their office. The free agency of Electors should explicitly be affirmed. |
|
Quoted:
But it doesn't thwart the Electoral College, strictly speaking. It's States choosing electors a particular way, which is their prerogative under the Constitution. They are appointing slates of Electors based on what is treated as a national straw poll. Personally, I think that Electors should be picked by CD except for two, which should be chosen by legislation, with CDs being drawn according to geography rather than population. Governors should be Electors by virtue of their office. The free agency of Electors should explicitly be affirmed. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States may choose any method they want to choose Electors, as long as it is prescribed by the legislature. Electors could be chosen by legislation, by lot, by direct election, by indirect election, by gubernatorial appointment, or other ,means. It's completely unconstitutional because it's an attempt to thwart the Electoral College and that one is in the Constitution. It would also have to be approved by the Congress per Article I, Section 10: 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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Liberals want this because it means that only the cities would control the presidency. I'll start shooting before I let that happen. But it doesn't thwart the Electoral College, strictly speaking. It's States choosing electors a particular way, which is their prerogative under the Constitution. They are appointing slates of Electors based on what is treated as a national straw poll. Personally, I think that Electors should be picked by CD except for two, which should be chosen by legislation, with CDs being drawn according to geography rather than population. Governors should be Electors by virtue of their office. The free agency of Electors should explicitly be affirmed. In the absolute sense, it doesn't, but it does take the selection of electors out of the state. It tells the voters of the smaller states and the state governments that their decisions no longer affect the election. The founders wanted the individual states to make their choice, not a collective. If I was a liberal and this law went against my candidate, that's what I would argue. The trouble with geographic congressional districts is the way they were abused. The English did it in the 19th century. Wealthy families created districts that they - literally - owned. Lord Douchebag got his manor made into a district. Everyone who worked for him lived in the district and it meant that Lord Douchebag always won the election because no one in the district dared to oppose him. I can't remember the name for this kind of district, but it was not viewed kindly. I'd love to see the congressional districts made smaller. They're too big and as long as they must include up to 630,000 people, they'll never be based on a rational interpretation of geography. It's just not possible in many places. So they get made to fit and there's no way to accommodate any legislative attempt at fairly drawn districts without twisting them around and that leads to gerrymandered districts. We addressed the minimum size of a district in the Constitution, but the number is out of date and the model needs an update. |