[headstamp 2]

It’s also a mass disenfranchisement of voters in a particular state.

[exDemMom]

Ignoring all intellectual positions, the Governor must know that if in 2004, 59,300 Ohioans had voted for John Kerry instead of George W. Bush, Senator Kerry would have become President despite having lost the national popular vote by over 3 million votes. New York voted overwhelmingly (58%) for Mr. Kerry. If the National Popular Vote Compact had been in place, every New York electoral vote would have gone to President Bush and made him the President of the United States instead of Mr. Kerry.

Something is wrong with this argument. I'm pretty certain that President Bush *did* become president in 2004. Whatever point the author was trying to make here is hopelessly muddy.

[Gaffer]

These kinds of machinations are what scares me about recent attempts to begin the process to hold a convention of states intended to reinforce the basic tenets of the US Constitution. Frankly, I don’t think the proponents for this could reasonably control the process and keep our enemies from interfering and subverting the process.

[Sherman Logan]

the roughly 13,000,000 million registered voters of New York.

Thass a LOT of voters!

[Cen-Tejas]

.......there’s no question that silver spoon Cuomo and lawyer and governor Cuomo, indeed all 3 of those people are “Leaders” of The Left in this country. Only Obama, Biden and Kerry, all three lefties too, are higher in the Marxist food chain in the US.

There’s also no question that The Left has declared war on the Constitution! They know they can’t kill it outright but “death by a thousand cuts” is their goal.

The only question is “Is The Right going to have the backbone and stamina to resist and defeat these bastards over the long haul?”

[Sherman Logan]

First there would have to be an election, then there would have to be a lawsuit, then the Supreme Court would have to decide if the winner of a presidential election would be the winner according to the Constitution or via a loophole developed by approved by a bunch of New York lawyers.

I'm not an attorney, but there might be an alternate route.

I don't see why the state of WY could not file suit against one or more states with this Compact in place. Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction, and presumably could determine whether it is or is not constitutional prior to an election.

Possibly even a citizen of NY could file such a lawsuit, which again would go straight to the Supremes.

Article III, Section 2. In all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

If somebody with better understanding of constitutional law could comment on whether a state or voter could file such a suit against a state for this reason, I'd appreciate it.

[RIghtwardHo]

Sorry (well not really) but I think the AC is an anachronistic joke. Every single campaign just floods a handful of areas. A handful of voters have WAY too much power. While we should amend the Constitution to get rid of the EC, this is a States’ Rights matter. They get to assign their EVs as they please. So if one has a problem with this, it again pints out with this anachronism.

Get rid of the EVs. I hope the States do this. And besides, if you can’t get a majority of the people to elect your guy, you don’t deserve to have your guy elected. Every other election in this Nation is popular vote.

[redangus]

This foolishness was started after the 2000 election. It is only gaining popularity in liberal states where of course the powers believe it will allow them to elect a liberal candidate in the event of another popular vote vs electoral vote schism. The first time a conservative wins the popular vote these libs will be running for the exits clinging to their seldom read copies of the Constitution.

[Gritty]

Constitution, Schmonstitution!

These days the Constitution is what a bunch of rich, scheming Liberal lawyers says it is - not what the Founding fathers drafted and the States agreed to. In our post-modern world, truth is what they say it is and not what it actually is.

That's the way of all tyrants.

[Political Junkie Too]

Under either Articles 1 & 5, separately and certainly collectively, the Supreme Court should hold the Compact unconstitutional.

I'm not sure that I agree with this sentiment. On its surface, the National Popular Vote Compact does seem to be constitutional, but only if Congress consents.

The Compact contemplates neither multiple or regional candidates. The proposal does not contemplate a popular third party candidate emerging in 2016 or thereafter. It is not inconceivable that a candidate could win but two or three states, but do well across the country and win the presidency.

I think I just thought of a new flaw in this argument that I had not considered before.

The idea of 3rd party candidates (like Ross Perot) for instance, gave us President Clinton who did not win a majority of the national popular vote (he won a plurality), but he still got the needed 270 electoral college votes.

But what happens if a candidate wins the national popular vote but fails to gain 270 electoral votes?

The National Popular Vote Compact violates the 12th amendment by usurping the power of the House of Representatives to choose the President in the event that a candidate fails to reach 270 votes.

Imagine a scenario where the compacting states award their 270 votes to the plurality winning candidate, but that candidate, without the NPV Compact, would not have attained both a majority national vote and the required 270 electoral college votes.

With the NPV Compact, the compacting state will still award 270 votes to the plurality winner, which bypasses the 12th amendment power of the House to decide.

Would the House of Representatives, as a part of consenting to the Compact, agree to give away this power?

-PJ

[mvymvy]

Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”

Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”

Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power — much less federal supremacy — in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states’ action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
“the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government.”

The Court also noted that the compact did not
“authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence.”

[DoodleDawg]

“Let’s skip any vote required by Congress, let’s skip the required vote of the states and let’s skip a Constitutional Convention --- oh, and let’s not even ask the people of New York.”

Article II, Section 1: "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..."

A popular vote for president is not required by the Constitution. They could flip a coin and award electoral votes based on that if the legislature approves it.