(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(Today 11:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(Today 11:07 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Two Words:
Constitutional Amendment.

Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It does. If the Compact goes into effect we can expect challenges, but governors and lawmakers in a number of states have already looked into this (many lawyers exist in those ranks!) and they like the odds.

I can see this playing out as the Compact taking effect first. Then, after a few election cycles with popular vote campaigning, no one wants to go back. A constitutional amendment becomes easy to pass, and that seals the deal.

This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

Quote:AI Overview

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification as outlined in Article V.

Step 1: Proposal (Getting the amendment started)

An amendment can be proposed through one of two methods:

• By Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (This is the method used for all 27 existing amendments).
• By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used).

Step 2: Ratification (Approve the change)

Once proposed, the amendment must be approved by the states using one of two methods chosen by Congress:

• State Legislatures: Three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it.
• State Conventions: Ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it (this method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment).

Key Rules

• No President Needed: A proposed amendment from Congress does not go to the president and does not require a presidential signature.
• Senate Equal Suffrage: No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage (two votes) in the Senate without its consent.
• Archivist Certification: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) manages the official tracking and proclamation once the 38th state ratifies.

You can read the exact rules directly at the National Constitution Center or study past changes via Congress.gov.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(Today 11:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(Today 11:07 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Two Words:
Constitutional Amendment.

Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It does. If the Compact goes into effect we can expect challenges, but governors and lawmakers in a number of states have already looked into this (many lawyers exist in those ranks!) and they like the odds.

I can see this playing out as the Compact taking effect first. Then, after a few election cycles with popular vote campaigning, no one wants to go back. A constitutional amendment becomes easy to pass, and that seals the deal.

This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

Quote:AI Overview

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification as outlined in Article V.

Step 1: Proposal (Getting the amendment started)

An amendment can be proposed through one of two methods:

• By Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (This is the method used for all 27 existing amendments).
• By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used).

Step 2: Ratification (Approve the change)

Once proposed, the amendment must be approved by the states using one of two methods chosen by Congress:

• State Legislatures: Three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it.
• State Conventions: Ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it (this method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment).

Key Rules

• No President Needed: A proposed amendment from Congress does not go to the president and does not require a presidential signature.
• Senate Equal Suffrage: No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage (two votes) in the Senate without its consent.
• Archivist Certification: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) manages the official tracking and proclamation once the 38th state ratifies.

You can read the exact rules directly at the National Constitution Center or study past changes via Congress.gov.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.

There is still an electoral college.

Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.

The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

Yes. Thank you for the succinct clarification.

Veto

(Today 12:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Veto

Aw, it’s cute you think Trump can veto state laws.

(Today 11:20 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(Today 11:07 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Two Words:
Constitutional Amendment.

Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It shouldn't. I mean the only way for it to stick is a Constitutional amendment, from what I understand.

Mr. Veto will probably have some say in this if it does need a constitutional change.

(Today 12:42 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 12:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Veto

Aw, it’s cute you think Trump can veto state laws.

Not 100% sure that a state can overrule in a Federal/national Election.... I do not know for sure, but common sense seems like that would be the way? Then again, our Government and Common Sense rarely play in the same sandbox.

(Today 12:46 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(Today 11:20 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(Today 11:07 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Two Words:
Constitutional Amendment.

Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It shouldn't. I mean the only way for it to stick is a Constitutional amendment, from what I understand.

Mr. Veto will probably have some say in this if it does need a constitutional change.

See process, shared above.

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(Today 11:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(Today 11:07 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Two Words:
Constitutional Amendment.

Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It does. If the Compact goes into effect we can expect challenges, but governors and lawmakers in a number of states have already looked into this (many lawyers exist in those ranks!) and they like the odds.

I can see this playing out as the Compact taking effect first. Then, after a few election cycles with popular vote campaigning, no one wants to go back. A constitutional amendment becomes easy to pass, and that seals the deal.

This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

Quote:AI Overview

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification as outlined in Article V.

Step 1: Proposal (Getting the amendment started)

An amendment can be proposed through one of two methods:

• By Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (This is the method used for all 27 existing amendments).
• By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used).

Step 2: Ratification (Approve the change)

Once proposed, the amendment must be approved by the states using one of two methods chosen by Congress:

• State Legislatures: Three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it.
• State Conventions: Ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it (this method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment).

Key Rules

• No President Needed: A proposed amendment from Congress does not go to the president and does not require a presidential signature.
• Senate Equal Suffrage: No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage (two votes) in the Senate without its consent.
• Archivist Certification: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) manages the official tracking and proclamation once the 38th state ratifies.

You can read the exact rules directly at the National Constitution Center or study past changes via Congress.gov.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

Democrat governors have vetoed it when tried to pass. Reps in swing districts in their states won’t touch it.

Keep dreaming.

(Today 12:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(Today 11:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Today 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  Does the Interstate Compact get around that?

It does. If the Compact goes into effect we can expect challenges, but governors and lawmakers in a number of states have already looked into this (many lawyers exist in those ranks!) and they like the odds.

I can see this playing out as the Compact taking effect first. Then, after a few election cycles with popular vote campaigning, no one wants to go back. A constitutional amendment becomes easy to pass, and that seals the deal.

This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

Quote:AI Overview

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification as outlined in Article V.

Step 1: Proposal (Getting the amendment started)

An amendment can be proposed through one of two methods:

• By Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (This is the method used for all 27 existing amendments).
• By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used).

Step 2: Ratification (Approve the change)

Once proposed, the amendment must be approved by the states using one of two methods chosen by Congress:

• State Legislatures: Three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it.
• State Conventions: Ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it (this method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment).

Key Rules

• No President Needed: A proposed amendment from Congress does not go to the president and does not require a presidential signature.
• Senate Equal Suffrage: No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage (two votes) in the Senate without its consent.
• Archivist Certification: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) manages the official tracking and proclamation once the 38th state ratifies.

You can read the exact rules directly at the National Constitution Center or study past changes via Congress.gov.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

You need to take another civics class if you think it takes a constitutional amendment for a state to decide how to cast their electors. Or use a simple google search to see what the popular vote compact is before running your mouth. Ignorance is a choice you seem to be making.

"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”

The popular vote compact is state legislatures deciding to cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Exactly as the constitution gives them the power.

Pretty sure there is a thousand page thread on this from the last time a state passed a law for it. The way it is written, I don't think it would be unconstitutional. The Constitution says states are in charge of their elections. States would still send their electoral delegates, but instead of selecting them based on results in their own state, they would select them based on who won the popular vote.

If they ever got enough states on board, it would be on the expressway to SCOTUS.

(Today 01:02 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Democrat governors have vetoed it when tried to pass. Reps in swing districts in their states won’t touch it.

Keep dreaming.

Already state law in 18 states with 222 electoral votes.

This is making news because on Tuesday the democrats took governor and legislature of enough states that if state laws are passed there they can kick it over 270 votes and put it into operation.

(Today 01:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 12:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(Today 11:40 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  It does. If the Compact goes into effect we can expect challenges, but governors and lawmakers in a number of states have already looked into this (many lawyers exist in those ranks!) and they like the odds.

I can see this playing out as the Compact taking effect first. Then, after a few election cycles with popular vote campaigning, no one wants to go back. A constitutional amendment becomes easy to pass, and that seals the deal.

This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

Quote:AI Overview

Changing the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process of proposal and ratification as outlined in Article V.

Step 1: Proposal (Getting the amendment started)

An amendment can be proposed through one of two methods:

• By Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (This is the method used for all 27 existing amendments).
• By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds of the state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used).

Step 2: Ratification (Approve the change)

Once proposed, the amendment must be approved by the states using one of two methods chosen by Congress:

• State Legislatures: Three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it.
• State Conventions: Ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states) vote to approve it (this method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment).

Key Rules

• No President Needed: A proposed amendment from Congress does not go to the president and does not require a presidential signature.
• Senate Equal Suffrage: No state can be deprived of its equal suffrage (two votes) in the Senate without its consent.
• Archivist Certification: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) manages the official tracking and proclamation once the 38th state ratifies.

You can read the exact rules directly at the National Constitution Center or study past changes via Congress.gov.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

You need to take another civics class if you think it takes a constitutional amendment for a state to decide how to cast their electors. Or use a simple google search to see what the popular vote compact is before running your mouth. Ignorance is a choice you seem to be making.

"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”

The popular vote compact is state legislatures deciding to cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Exactly as the constitution gives them the power.

You might want to talk to Elana Kagan who penned the SCOTUS unanimous Decision regarding this. Google is not your friend.
Chiafalo v. Washington

(Today 01:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 01:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 12:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

You need to take another civics class if you think it takes a constitutional amendment for a state to decide how to cast their electors. Or use a simple google search to see what the popular vote compact is before running your mouth. Ignorance is a choice you seem to be making.

"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”

The popular vote compact is state legislatures deciding to cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Exactly as the constitution gives them the power.

You might want to talk to Elana Kagan who penned the SCOTUS unanimous Decision regarding this. Google is not your friend.
Chiafalo v. Washington

The reason I think it would pass is in Kegan's opinion

Quote:Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking
away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Ar
ticle II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors,
and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting proce
dures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorpo
rated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no lan
guage of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution.

If the state law is that states electoral votes go to the popular vote winner, nothing in the Constitution would prohibit it.

But, none of us are Constitutional scholars. This would be decided by SCOTUS if it ever goes into effect.

(Today 11:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/202...e-compact/

Tuesday’s wave election swept Democrats into power in Congress. But the most seismic result for American politics and democracy may come out of the battleground states where Democrats just won trifecta control by taking both state houses and the governor’s mansion: Come January, Democratic legislators will have the votes to elect the next president by the popular vote.

State lawmakers could circumvent the Electoral College by enacting what’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

No--they dont have enough votes. For one thing, that compact violates the Constitution and undermines the voting rights of individual Americans by not only ignoring their votes---it actually CHANGES the votes that were cast. A lawsuit seeking an injunction against it would simply use the same theory that works in civil rights voting cases---unequal representation---and the whole thing would be on ice for years. By the time the courts sorted it out----state legislatures in reliable red states will have already flipped back to Republican and the gambit would be over. I think the Trump DOJ could probably make a federal case against officials from the states involved in the conspiracy under election tampering laws as well.

(Today 01:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 01:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 12:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 11:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  This is what a quick search brings. If true, it's never going to happen, IMO.

The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

You need to take another civics class if you think it takes a constitutional amendment for a state to decide how to cast their electors. Or use a simple google search to see what the popular vote compact is before running your mouth. Ignorance is a choice you seem to be making.

"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”

The popular vote compact is state legislatures deciding to cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Exactly as the constitution gives them the power.

You might want to talk to Elana Kagan who penned the SCOTUS unanimous Decision regarding this. Google is not your friend.
Chiafalo v. Washington

You really woke up today and chose ignorance.

The popular vote compact hasn’t been challenged in court because it hasn’t been used. That ruling is on censuring states electors for becoming faithless electors.

Electors in NPV compact wouldn’t be faithless, they would be casting votes for the candidate their state legislature sent them there to support. When the NPV is challenged in court that case will actually be used to support it because of the strong stance it takes for the state legislature to bind EC electors.

You are going to want to go back to the drawing board and figure out what the NPV Compact is, and perhaps take that civics class again and see what the constitution says about presidential elections.

(Today 01:20 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(Today 01:17 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 01:04 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(Today 12:55 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(Today 12:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The popular vote compact doesn’t require an amendment.


There is still an electoral college.


Enough of the states decide to cast their electoral college votes for the popular vote winner, then the popular vote decides the presidency.


The constitution says each state shall decide their electors, this is them deciding.

You need to stay off Social Media for your Civics lessons. Those of us that are older took Civics in the 6th grade and we know how the Constitution is Amended. This proves even so called "educated" people know nothing and will be Useful Idiots for the Left. The Democrat party has figured this out. But they will keep saying it and the Idiots will keep holding out hope.

You need to take another civics class if you think it takes a constitutional amendment for a state to decide how to cast their electors. Or use a simple google search to see what the popular vote compact is before running your mouth. Ignorance is a choice you seem to be making.

"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”

The popular vote compact is state legislatures deciding to cast their electors for the popular vote winner. Exactly as the constitution gives them the power.

You might want to talk to Elana Kagan who penned the SCOTUS unanimous Decision regarding this. Google is not your friend.
Chiafalo v. Washington

The reason I think it would pass is in Kegan's opinion

Quote:Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking
away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Ar
ticle II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors,
and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting proce
dures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorpo
rated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no lan
guage of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution.

If the state law is that states electoral votes go to the popular vote winner, nothing in the Constitution would prohibit it.

But, none of us are Constitutional scholars. This would be decided by SCOTUS if it ever goes into effect.

Well, if that's the case the "electors" could choose someone that didn't even run making state elections pointless. If "electors" don't have to vote for the person that won the majority of THAT STATE'S ballots, then why do they do it?

(Today 01:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(Today 11:04 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/202...e-compact/

Tuesday’s wave election swept Democrats into power in Congress. But the most seismic result for American politics and democracy may come out of the battleground states where Democrats just won trifecta control by taking both state houses and the governor’s mansion: Come January, Democratic legislators will have the votes to elect the next president by the popular vote.

State lawmakers could circumvent the Electoral College by enacting what’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

No--they dont have enough votes. For one thing, that compact violates the Constitution and undermines the voting rights of individual Americans by not only ignoring their votes---it actually CHANGES the votes that were cast. A lawsuit seeking an injunction against it would simply use the same theory that works in civil rights voting cases---unequal representation---and the whole thing would be on ice for years. By the time the courts sorted it out----state legislatures in reliable red states will have already flipped back to Republican and the gambit would be over. I think the Trump DOJ could probably make a federal case against officials from the states involved in the conspiracy under election tampering laws as well.

"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”