(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.

States can make any sort of pact they like, but they could then break said pact the next time the wheel turns and the other party is in power. For that matter, they could make the pact but then decide to break it if the Democrats were still in power if the the electoral college favored Democrats in that cycle. Besides which, what need is there to worry about the electoral college when they just swept Texas, Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and probably got Senators in Alaska and, hard to believe this one, Mississippi? The Electoral College complaints were just noise bc a few elections favored republicans over Democrats if you used the Electoral College instead of National popular vote, but that could just as easily swing the other way for the next few elections. I think we will see this issue die off unless we see something crazy in 2028, say that the Democrats win the national popular vote by 7 points but lose the electoral college or something extreme like that.

Stick around long enough and we’ll probably see some Republicans trying to kill off the Ekectoral College bc it favors the dems in the 2030s or 2040s.

(Today 01:35 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(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:  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?

They do, and that was Kegan's/SCOTUS opinion. The states have every right to tell Electors who they are required to vote for. The states that have passed laws for this national popular vote pact basically changed the law of who they would be required to vote for.

Listen, I'm not arguing this is a good thing. Seems insane to me a state would give up its independence in voting. I'm just saying, I don't think the federal government has the power to stop it without a constitutional amendment to prevent it. I don't think the founding father's ever could have imagined this would possibly be a thing.