Posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
c # 100
And excellent explanation, kabar!
I'm against this BIG TIME.
Arnold better NOT sign this bill.
You are correct, and my earlier comments were wrong. I simply assumed that they had structured it informally, but I now see that it is intended to be a true compact among states.
I read over their material in which they address Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution but fail to make any kind of persuasive case that this compact would not require Congressional approval. The best they can do is cite a few Supreme Court opinions allowing compacts which either have implied consent or are effectively so straightforward and have so little effect on states outside the compact as to not need Congressional consent.
However, most compacts among states do receive explicit Congressional consent. I doubt very much if such a far-reaching one as this could get past the Supreme Court without such explicit Congressional consent. It obviously effects nonmembers states politically in a multitude of ways and on a core issue of our democracy.
So the question is, how likely would Congress be to grant such consent? A lot would depend upon which political party controlled each house of Congress. It could get bottled up in committees, and it could be filibustered in the Senate. Small states would tend to oppose it, since it eliminates their disproportionate influence in the Electoral College. And since small states also have disproportionate influence in the U.S. Senate, the tendency will be for them to block consent.
If you win more votes than the rest of the candidates (plural, there were more than two candidates in the race) but less than 50% you have won a "plurality".
no yitbos
If Dems lose using his method, what will they cry about then?
Nothing yet. He has 8 more days to decide on hundreds of bills.
(snip)
Article 3. Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in
Member States
Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the
presidential electors, the chief election official of each member
state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate
in each state of the United States and in the District of Columbia
in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and
shall add such votes together to produce a "national popular vote
total" for each presidential slate.
The chief election official of each member state shall designate
the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total
as the "national popular vote winner."
This is a serious movement with an array of legal advisors and constitutional advisors on their side. More than likely it would be challenged in the courts all the way up to the SCOTUS. There is no guarantee that this would be declared unconstitutional and SCOTUS may wish to stay out of it and defer to the states' authorty and rights under the Constitution. You can bet that the legal issues have been vetted in the various states, including California, where this plan is moving forward.
In 2000, if all states subscribed to this method, Gore would have received 100=percent of the Electoral College vote, because Gore WON the national popular vote.
In other words, I'm not sure why Florida would have made any particular difference. Every state, regardless of its individual outcome, would have given its Electoral College votes to Gore because Gore WON the national popular vote by 500,000.
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.