Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
And while Article II, Section 1 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...") does allow states to choose electors pretty much however they like, the words "Each state" (and not "States"/Every state"/Etc.) reflects that same intent to restrict interstate compacts.
SCOTUS has since narrowed that restriction to only those interstate compacts which would increase state power while decreasing federal power --- But this would clearly be the case for a compact to bypass the federal Constitution's required amendment process to make presidential elections by popular vote.
Nothing new here.
Imagine the legal gymnastics to have this overturned after the 2020 election results come in and Trump gets popular vote.
I've yet to confirm that...
Unconstitutional.
Someone better challenge this to Scotus asap or 2020 is gone...
This plus the invading hoards and the “threats to close the border” are not good.
Because it's not in effect, there's nothing to challenge right now. It's just a one-party scheme that has fewer electoral votes going for it right now than big loser Hillary Clinton won in 2016. When they get an actual red-in-2016 state to join, wake me up, until then, it's just noise.
I can’t imagine it can be challenged until it’s actually invoked
They’re trying to rig the election. California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois and New York have all given illegal immigrants “state voting” rights. These, along with normal blue state cheating will be used to increase the few million votes needed to change the popular vote (recall they already did this in California last election, did it for Obama in 2008 and nearly pulled it off in 2001 at state levels.)
Now they can leverage their larger blue state cheating to swing the presidential election.
Civil war is imminent.
Folks,
Trump might win the popular vote, then what?
Whew...thank goodness its not unconstitutional or anything right? <Sarcasm off
The Constitution requires the federal government to guarantee to every State a Republican form of government. (Article IV, Section 4)
Requiring State EC votes to go to the nominee that voters in other States voted for is not a Republican form of government for any State.
Why should a state be able to set the rules for a federal election?
Do state governments allow townships or counties to supersede their statewide election laws?
“You have a Republic, if you can keep it.” - Ben Franklin, 1787
So in Delaware your vote means nothing, zilch, zero, nada.
Fine. By their logic, Delaware should not have two senators. After all, why should Delaware have the same number of Senators as Texas or California?
Maybe they don’t want to show their hand? Saving it for the “So sad-too bad.” reveal.
That’s a betrayal of the populace of the state.
It destroys the idea of a republic of states.
However, watch it backfire on them and force them to give the votes to Trump.
That would be too delicious.
F*ck Delaware!
What is the "national popular vote"?
Who counts the votes? Who certifies it? How is it audited in case of a dispute? To whom would a dispute be addressed?
Supposing this system is constitutional - what if NJ, Washington State, and Maryland keep Trump off their ballots, as they have promised to do? What if California does? Donald Trump got 4,483,000 votes in California in 2016.
What authority would be in charge of defining and validating a "national popular vote"? The Washington Post? MSNBC?
The whole PURPOSE of State Legislatures controlling the choice of the President was to PREVENT a national authority (i.e., the sitting President and Congress) from controlling the process.
You are right
So, there is little point to the people of Delaware voting - their Electoral Votes would not be determined by the voters of their state, but by the voters of other states.
There is also no such thing as a “national popular vote” that is ever certified.