MAJOR news on REPLACING Electoral College

[malaise]

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The Maine House has passed legislation that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), an agreement between a group of states that have pledged to award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote upon the compact's activation.5

Adding et tu's link from #39
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

[Tickle]

1. Does this mean if you win a

state you might not have really won the state?

This is going to go to the SC and it will suck if they pick the president again.

[Think. Again.]

7. It sucks that the popular minority keep picking the President too.

[radical noodle]

9. I believe that it's the overall popular vote

that they're pledging to vote for. In other words, if the state votes Republican, but the popular votes of all the states give the Democrats the popular vote win, then the state delegates will vote for the Democrat. At least this is the way it was explained to me several months ago.

[Tickle]

14. That just doesn't seem right to me

Does this mean if by chance we won Florida that they can give the votes to Republicans?

[sarisataka]

20. If the Republican candidate won the popular vote

That is what would happen.

For some reason no one considers the scenario where, by this agreement, someday states won by a Democrat would be required to vote for a Republican.

[radical noodle]

22. I don't think Florida has signed on

but yes, if Republicans won the popular vote overall (how often has that happened recently?)

[Voltaire2]

25. It means that the winner of the national popular vote would always win the election.

Stop thinking 'state' votes, it makes the individual state vote totals irrelevant. Once enough states are in the 'compact', only the national popular vote counts.

[eggplant]

64. I came here to say this.

When choosing a president, it shouldn't matter which state you live in.

The problem with the Electoral College is that it gives citizens of some states a disproportionate say in who the president is. POTUS and VPOTUS are the only elections where everyone in the country votes. To resolve this discrepancy, the Compact means that whoever wins the country-wide popular vote regardless of where they live, wins the election. This has the EXACT same effect as eliminating the Electoral College. Eliminating the EC would require a constitutional amendment, while individual states ratifying the Compact wouldn't.

All the compact does is if enough states that sign on control the majority of the EC delegates, they will collectively cast their EC votes for the popular (national) vote winner, thus nullifying the effect of the EC. If there aren't enough states signed on to the compact to constitute a majority in the EC, then no state will implement it. It is meaningless until enough states are on board.

The Compact effectively eliminates all of the "electoral math" crap where certain states are considered swing states and others are ignored. No more Bush v Gore. No more "I just need X more votes" phone calls. EVERY vote matters at that point, regardless of where it is cast. Which is how it should be.

[The Revolution]

65. But the EC is still there

The states would still send delegates to the electoral college. And in fact the EC vote is still the only thing that counts, and not the popular vote.

It's just that the states in the compact are supposed to send delegates based on the national popular vote winner.

But in a scenario where a Republican wins the most votes in a state, but that state has to send Democratic electors to the EC, the fact that they didn't win that state is going to be an issue.

[Voltaire2]

73. We have had a repeated 'issue' where

the ‘winner’ had a distinct minority of the popular vote. If you think that is a less serious problem than a state’s population voting for the loser, then of course you will reject solutions to the popular vote problem.

[Voltaire2]

24. The states are each in control of the allocation of electors.

It will of course go to the SC, but unless those shitheads invent some more new constitution there is no case.

[BOSSHOG]

2. May I suggest

Doing away with the electoral college would have the same result. We don’t need the electoral college.. they do, because they can’t win the popular vote. The EC was created by slave owners for slave owners. It serves no good purpose.

[IL Dem]

3. It would take a constitutional amendment.

A very difficult, nearly impossible, process -- especially in today's political climate.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Todays political climate exists

Because we didn’t “amend” it away long ago. I long for the fight when they argue against one citizen one vote. No doubt they could do it with gusto and violence.

[bullimiami]

8. Why? The states decide how to award the electoral votes.

If they decide to award them to the popular vote winner it’s totally following the constitution and scotus has no say.

It’s triggered by majority of EVs joined correct?

This doesn’t change the EC or need any constitutional amendment.

[former9thward]

13. The compact would require a constitutional admendment.

The Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) prohibits compacts between states unless approved by Congress. This compact has not been approved by Congress.

[Voltaire2]

27. That has not been interpreted to prohibit all agreements between states,

Only those that would diminish federal sovereignty are prohibited, for example texas and florida jointly agreeing to implement their own border policies.
However, just to be safe, a law passed by congress would be a good idea. That is a much lower bar than an amendment.

[former9thward]

30. Well it would diminish the Electoral college on its face.

So I believe that is a pretty good argument the compact would require Congressional approval.

[Voltaire2]

32. Which has zero to do with federal sovereignty

but as I said, I agree that congressional legislation would put an end to that avenue for blocking it.

[Polybius]

41. I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment

It's going to be struck down by the SC 9-0, and that's even with congressional approval.

[Voltaire2]

45. The constitution is very clear that it is up to the states

Clause 2 Electors
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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1

The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination.1 In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court upheld a state law providing for electors to be selected by popular vote from districts rather than statewide.2 Noting that states could choose from among a variety of permissible methods in selecting electors, the Supreme Court stated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-3/ALDE_00013800/

[Polybius]

47. It's also clear that they are tampering with the Constitution by looking for loopholes

No way to prove it now, but I stand by my 9-0 comment.

[Voltaire2]

51. lol. It is not a loophole.

[Polybius]

79. Disagree

The Framers wanted it to be possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election through the EC. This creates a loophole so that doesn't happen. I will be back in this thread to say "ah ha!" when it's struck down.

[Farmer-Rick]

10. And even if it was Amended

The Supremes would claim more legislative action would be required to implement it... of course.

Much like the 13th Amendment.

[soldierant]

70. That's true for now.

I consider it possible that, after the nation has seen enough elections settled by the Compact, and the Republic is still standing, an amendment might become possible. I do not expect that to happen within my lifetime. Heck, I don;t expect the Compact to go into effect in my lifetime - I'm 78.

[TwilightZone]

4. Getting rid of the electoral college would be much better.

There are still myriad legal and constitutional issues yet to be resolved with the compact, and there's no guarantee that it would ever be able to be implemented.

No such problem if the EC goes away, though it would require an amendment.

Unfortunately, neither is politically possible at the moment or will be anytime in the near-term future, the "Major News" hyperbole of the headline, notwithstanding.

[NNadir]

5. Exactly. The Electoral College Is the Last Relic of Slavery in the Constitution.

[plimsoll]

11. "The EC was created by slave owners for slave owners."

That's how it was used, I think it was created because Rhode Island knew it needed a little boost. In the end Rhode Island waited a year and a half to ratify, and then out of fear of reprisal. I don't think the founders actually contemplated that we'd wind up with states like Wyoming, S. Dakota, N. Dakota and Alaska with populations about the same as a medium sized city.

[sarisataka]

16. It is interesting to see how modern myth

Is created and propagated.

[Voltaire2]

26. This does not require an amendment. nt.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Eliminating the EC would require amending the constitution

This interstate compact is a (possibly unconstitutional) workaround.

[MichMan]

12. Why not just implement it now, instead of waiting for other states to pass it?

[Voltaire2]

28. It makes no sense unless an electoral majority are in the compact. nt.

[KS Toronado]

15. This does not help Der orange Fuhrer

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the
District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular
vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected
president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3]

Introduced in 2006, as of March 2024 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These
jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to
give the compact legal force.

Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have
plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require
congressional consent under the Constitution's Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot
be altered except by a constitutional amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[ColinC]

17. Kinda surprised they haven't done that yet

But great news!

[jaxexpat]

18. Electoral college, bad. But what's a nation to do?

In the spirit of genuine and with an equally nod to the NPVIC, I offer two well considered, reasonable and perfect solutions.

Based on bizzarro logic:
We should let Ron DeSantis run it. He screws up everything he touches (especially colleges) so he'd make it as impotent and irrelevant as his politics, and that pesky Electoral College would become just another historic curiosity which Republicans can deny and forget, like Watergate, Iran-Contra, slavery or Coke Zero.

There's another solution based on accepted, long running and traditional constitutional logic (ever so slightly less bizzarro, maybe, and speaking of slavery):
Originally slave holders enjoyed 3/5 of an extra vote for each of their slaves. It was the perfect solution and an answer for every question and everything at the time since they didn't care about the unified field theory or any other stuff they refused to think about. Well, the plan to solve the Electoral College is that all US citizens who are descended from slaves shall have a one citizen/one vote standing while everyone else will have 3/5 of one vote each standing. This should put everything aright in short order and go a long way toward solving the "reparations" quandary and those that disagree can have a word with General Meade at Gettysburg.

You're welcome..........

[617Blue]

19. Blue states surrendering their elec votes? No thanks.

There is no way the Red States will ever do his so it seems like unilateral disarmament?

[Voltaire2]

29. It doesn't matter if there are a majority of EC votes are in the compact.

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

your vote is all that matters, your state is irrelevant.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Except Republicans have won the popular vote just once in the past 30 years. Nt

[GreenWave]

21. Repugs find ways to weasel around. This way the electoral college goes to

a mere formality as it should.

[sanatanadharma]

23. Every vote for President should have equal weight regardless of State

I should think the States could chose to do this by state law. No different than when the voters were first invited into the smoke-filled-back-rooms-of-good-ole-boy-pols who chose the Electoral collegians.

The President's office alone, represents ALL Americans. The President's constituency is not limited to districts or States.
The President should be chosen by a direct majority of all American voters; all Americans need to be equal regardless of zip-code.
US cities and towns and farms and dying communities all have their representatives and Senators to deal with their different zip-code needs.

Of, course, if we really believe that the majority of Americans are maga-mindless-moral-morans, then of course Democracy is dangerous.
I know a nice place to resettle for those who don't rail at hearing and knowing el español.

[onenote]

31. Not likely to reach the required threshold unless some red states support it.

With Maine, there currently are 209 electoral college votes represented by the states adopting the compact. The threshold is 270. There simply aren't enough blue states to get to the 270 threshold and its unlikely that red states will support it.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

63. Didn't Joe Biden, once upon a time, get to that 270 threshold?

[onenote]

66. yes. But of the 8 states he won that haven't adopted the compact, only two have Democratic govs and legislatures

The compact needs states with 61 more electoral votes, but the two states where the legislature might adopt it and not have it vetoed by a Republican governor only represent 31 electoral votes. The other six states either have a Republican state legislature, a Republican governor, or both.

Until Democrats get control of the legislatures AND state houses in those states, they aren't likely to support the compact.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

69. It's a slog, not a sprint. It's still more likely than an Amendment at this time.

Working toward this goal can result in more gains in those legislatures. The electorate is not a homogenous mass; working multiple fronts and multiple appeals will educate the electorate.

I live in "red" Kentucky. While nearly 8 of 10 of my neighbors are habitual GOP voters, that's not true state-wide, nor has it always been true here. The Fox noise machine has captured many but there are signs that grip is loosening as Fox lies are exposed.

[OnlinePoker]

34. Doesn't it need a constitutional amendment? n/t

[malaise]

36. I posted it for the experts to weigh in

[Warpy]

37. Rural states will pitch a fit over losing the EC

because of how the EC is apportioned, they won't be able to push the rest of us around. They will complain that the country will be run by the big cities on the coasts and they will be right. However, the anti EC side can easily argue that this is overshadowed by their contining power in a lopsided Senate, and they will be right.

It will take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the EC, and good luck with that. We couldn't even get one passed that said women are people, leaving half of us with the legal status of cattle in some states.

This sounds like a good stepping stone, making the EC vestigial.

Future TFGs can try stuffing the EC ballots again, I suppose, and future Russian tools can refuse to acknowledge their states' EC votes, but this will short circuit such attempts without the quick action of anonymous staff who won't be there in time.

[ripcord]

46. The problem is that the EC is serving its intended purpose

It is written to keep the urban areas from dictating to the rural areas, that is why it exists.

[Warpy]

56. That function is now served by the Senate

which is supposed to represent the interests of the states and not the people, dirrectly. Rural Senators outnumber those from urban states, which is why the GOP had a lock on it for so long, that and McConnel's abuse of Senate rules.

The EC is an antidemocratic vestige of a time gone by, when the country was founded by the equivalent of landed gentry who had been radicalized by oppression by a colonial power and wanted to paddle their own canoes, thanks. They didn't trust the people and feared mob rule. Current experience with MAGAts has shown us why, their separation of the people from electing the chief executive by making sure the "right people" would prevent populist assholes from seizing power was the function it was meant to have. The people have proven to be smarter than the EC over the past 24 years, hoever, so some changes are overdue.

States will undoubtedly enter and leave the EC compact as time changes voting patterns and population. Dubya and TFG showed us how the EC in its present form could be gamed by the populist assholes the founders wanted to prevent. Change is overdue, and the compact doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

[FBaggins]

57. Now?

The two were created at the same time.

[ripcord]

75. The compact will most likley be blocked by SCOTUS

So don't get married to that idea.

[Warpy]

76. Oh, I'm not,

I kbnow we the people can't expect any justice at all from this badly skewed court.

[chowmama]

38. But we're a nation of dissent

I've heard (and somebody will surely correct me if I'm wrong) that in Japanese culture, as soon as it's seen that a decision in, say, a meeting is going to go a particular way, that it's required that everybody change their vote so it's a 100% consensus. Any outlier is a great scandal. And they don't tolerate scandal particularly well. I believe the saying goes "The nail that sticks up is the one that's pounded down".

Our country was created out of the right to dissent. We have a longstanding tradition of dissent. Our Constitution guarantees it in a number of ways. This isn't going to fly. And I really don't want it to. It's a two-edged knife without a bolster, guard, or much of a handle.

It would need a Constitutional Amendment, as well, and I don't see enough states going for it. Not only did the ERA not pass, I don't believe it would today. And that amendment makes a lot more sense.

[et tu]

39. here is some more 411

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

[malaise]

60. Thanks

[et tu]

71. sure thing

[malaise]

74. Really good info

[Polybius]

40. It'll be struck down 9-0 if it ever gets to the Supreme Court

The EC is here to stay, like it or not.

[Mr.Bill]

43. I think it will take a constitutional amendment

to get rid of it.

[Polybius]

44. Definitely

People are getting their hopes up for nothing with this.

[Voltaire2]

49. The constitution explicitly states that each state can appoint electors

in any manner that their legislature decides. It is very clear:

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

And in case you think that is ambiguous somehow, here is the commentary:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, also known as the Electors Appointment Clause, provides for states to select electors to vote for the President and establishes that the number of each state’s electors will equal the number of its Senators and Representatives.1 The Framers adopted the Electors Appointment Clause as a compromise between the direct election of the President and his selection by Congress. Among the Framers’ objectives was to provide for the President’s selection by persons whose sole purpose would be choosing the best candidate for the President rather than by persons selected for the general purposes of legislation.2 Notwithstanding this electoral system, divorcing selection of the President from partisan politics proved elusive.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-1/ALDE_00013798/

I agree the decision will be 9-0, and it will uphold the legality with respect to Article II section 1, Clause 2. The only constitutional issue that has merit is the 'interstate compact clause', that might require congress to pass a law. Fortunately it is much easier to get a law through congress than it is to pass an amendment.

[FBaggins]

54. I doubt that the courts would agree that this power...

… extended to giving other states the power to appoint them.

But it doesn’t matter - because that interstate compact requirement is not easy at all… because approval of compacts is limited to things that they could pass through legislation… and they can’t amend the constitution through legislation

[Voltaire2]

61. It doesn't give any other state any power at all.

Each legislature enacts the compact on its own. State electors are allocated based on the national popular vote. No other state is empowered to do any allocation of other state electors.

[FBaggins]

67. Untrue

It obviously gives the voters of other states the ability to allocate the participating state's electors even if every single voter chose someone else.

It also binds the state to not change the determination during certain periods (e.g., less than six months prior to an election) - despite it's creation supposedly as an exercise of that state power.

[Voltaire2]

72. No it does not give any other state the power

to allocate any of that state’s electors. Instead it gives all the people the power to allocate that state’s electors, not a state. Which is exactly what a popular vote election is intended to do.

[Polybius]

80. You clearly want this passed so bad

But you're setting yourself up for disappointment when it fails in every court.

[The Grand Illuminist]

42. The only way to solve the EC problem

is through Article V remedies. Which means every state must elect pro convention reps to their respective state houses. There is no way in hell 2/3 of the US senate will go for it in a standard constitutional amendment vote.

[Mountainguy]

48. The problem isn't going to be the Supreme Court

The problem is that it'll never reach the number needed to be activated.

Republican legislatures will never pass it, and swing states don't want it because elections are cash cows for them.

[Voltaire2]

50. Maine is a swing state.

[Mountainguy]

53. Not really

They have one congressional district that can swing, but the state overall hasn't gone to a Republican since '88. It takes a large Democratic underperformance nationwide for Maine to really be even close, so if Maine is close the other swing states have already gone to Republicans, and it's irrelevant. Nobody is spending big money in Maine because of that.

This compact would need states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to join and they aren't going to.

[surfered]

52. Don't unilaterally disarm!!!

The Red States will not go along with this idea, so the Blue States will just be giving up Electoral Votes.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

55. The National Compact is the best that we can hope for

I want to get rid of the Electoral College. The best way is a constitutional amendment but this compact is the next best solution to the problem of the electoral college

[spanone]

58. Great News!

This government by minority is total bullshit

[D23MIURG23]

59. I like this idea, but if it were ever to make a difference in an election I think it would be ruled unconstitutional.

It seems too much like a work around for a problem that is supposed to be fixed with a constitutional amendment.

[flying_wahini]

62. It's the computer age. Drop the electoral college altogether and let's just all vote - one person, one vote.

They haven’t won a popular election in a while.

[Tree Lady]

68. I think they should let us vote by computer

With facial recognition, finger print and anything else to secure it.

[Mike Nelson]

77. I believe...

... the Supreme Court would stop this quickly. What we have do is amend the US Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College.

[LiberalFighter]

78. Unless there are red states included it doesn't do any good.

The compact only applies to those states that agree to it.

[jcgoldie]

81. if they get to 270 blue or red doesn't matter

Thats the point

[BComplex]

82. There is NO WAY in hell that the republican states, which seriously outnumber the democratic states,

will ever vote to hand elections to the democrats. Why would they ever agree to that? It has taken them generations to gerrymander and brainwash every citizen of this country to the best of their ability, and the ability of the oligarchs that rule our country.