“A state is not required to conduct a vote AT ALL as a means of selecting it’s Electors.”
You are 100% correct, but you also miss the point by 100%.
No, a state DOES NOT have to conduct a vote to select electors.
But - and its a VERY BIG BUT - if a state DOES conduct a vote as the means of selecting electors, then it must respect the outcome of that vote, and not change it. To do so would violate the Supreme Courts dictum:
“Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
If a state such as California wants to sign on the the “popular vote” movement, that’s all well and good. They can do so — SO LONG AS THEY ABOLISH THE ELECTION TO CHOOSE ELECTORS (shouting intentional). Get rid of the election in toto, and now the state legislature can select electors however they wish, and it’s completely Constitutional.
But — again — if they HAVE an “election”, then they also have to abide by its results (the “results” being the total of the state’s voters, not modified or changed in any way).
Having written this, I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually see a movement in one or more ‘rat states to actually abolish the “election for President” and have the state legislature choose electors based on the popular vote in OTHER states. Some fool will actually propose doing this. Mark my words.
My prediction:
When the Supreme Court rules on the “popular vote” compact between the states, it will be invalidated by the reasoning I’ve outlined above.
Just sayin’....
Yes, I agree with you.